Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 14, No.

1, 2000

The Clactonian Question: On the Interpretation of Core-and-Flake Assemblages in the British Lower Paleolithic
Mark J. White1

In recent years, the nature, signicance, and validity of the British core-andake assemblage known as the Clactonian have come under close scrutiny. More traditional ideas, which see the Clactonian as the product of a distinct, non-handax-making technical tradition, are being challenged by notions of a single European knapping repertoire in which the proportion of handaxes varies according to factors such as activity facies, local raw material potential, and landscape use. Furthermore, recent technological studies which show a basic technological parity between the Acheulean and the Clactonian, including claims for rare atypical bifaces within the Clactonian, have been argued as eroding the very rationale for seeing the Clactonian as a separate entity. These challenges have gained widespread acceptance, despite a lack of empirical support in some cases, questionable conclusions, and hints of a widely ignored, yet intriguing chronological recurrence. A review of the empirical basis and interpretation of the Clactonian, in both recent years and the recent past, suggests that the Clactonian is in danger of being explained away, rather than explained.
KEY WORDS: Lower Paleolithic; Clactonian; Acheulean; core-and-ake technology; handaxes; Britain.

INTRODUCTION The European Lower Paleolithic is traditionally divided into two lithic assemblage types: assemblages with handaxes, generally assigned to the
1

Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Science Site, South Road, Durham, England DH1 3LE. e-mail: m.j.white@durham.ac.uk. 1
0892-7537/00/0300-0001$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

White

Acheulean technocomplex; and nonhandax (core-and-ake) assemblages, variously interpreted as being either ake- or core-tool based and known by a number of local or regional names. Assessing the meaning of these variants, examining their relationship and determining the signicance of the presence/absence of a single tool form, the handax, has dominated much Lower Paleolithic research for the better part of a century. This paper reviews the historical development and modern interpretations of the most famous of these core-and-ake industries, the Clactonian. First dened on artifacts collected from Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, England, during the early 1900s, the Clactonian is arguably the archetypal core-and-ake assemblage for the European Lower Paleolithic (Fig. 1). Almost all other nonhandax assemblages have at one time been compared or assigned to it; it has given its name to a specic tool typethe Clactonian notchfound in numerous Lower and Middle Paleolithic contexts; and the name is still occasionally used to describe a method of aking and its products (e.g., Otte et al., 1998). Yet behind this apparent consensus lies no consensus at all. The classic denition of the Clactonian, familiar to most prehistorians, can be summarized thus. 1. The Clactonian is a technologically distinct, primitive core-and-ake assemblage which contains chopper-cores and unstandardized aketools but denitively lacks handaxes. The use of anvil technique is common. 2. The Clactonian represents the earliest occupation of Britain. 3. The Clactonian represents the products of a habitually non-handaxmaking culture-group which has no close afnities with the Acheulean but is related to the chopper/chopping-tool industries of Asia. 4. The Clactonian entered Britain from the east, via central Europe and Asia, and was replaced by different culture-groups (or even racial forms) from southern Europe who habitually produced handaxes. For the past 20 years this traditional interpretation has been increasingly questioned. Informed by higher-resolution Quaternary frameworks, everchanging theoretical paradigms, new discoveries, and new empirical analyses of old collections, modern generations of workers are questioning not only the orthodox interpretations and cultural designations of the Clactonian, but its very existence. Thus far, this Clactonian debate seems to have had little impact outside the shores of Britain, assuming something of a parochial air. Yet the issues at stake actually impact upon the interpretation of Middle Pleistocene core-and-ake versus handax assemblages across the entire Old World, encompassing a wide variety of empirical and theoret ical approaches. In short, the study of the Clactonian is a virtual precis of Lower Paleolithic lithic research, both today and in the recent past.

The Clactonian Question

Fig. 1. Clactonian artifacts from the type-site at Clacton-on-Sea. (1) Notched ake; (2) worked ake; (3) bill-hook form; (4) side-scraper; (5) biconical core; (6) chopper-core; (7) protobiface core; (8) ake; (9) denticulate; (10) bifacial denticulate. [14 and 610, after Wymer (1985), reproduced with the kind permission of J. J. Wymer; 5, after Bridgland et al. (1999), reproduced by permission of Elsevier Publishing.]

The paper is presented in three broad sections. The rst is a history of research into the Clactonian, presenting key developments in a contemporary light to engender an understanding of how critical concepts evolved in league with prevailing changes in archaeological thought to produce the denition most familiar today. This section is essential for a full appreciation

White

of the modern Clactonian debate. The second section attempts to provide a modern synthesis of the Clactonian in view of more recent Quaternary frameworks and empirical analyses and includes a brief gazetteer of the most important Clactonian sites. The nal section offers a critical appraisal of the interpretations that have been presented over the past 25 years to explain the Clactonian.

THE HISTORY OF THE CLACTONIAN Genesis, 19121932 The Clactonian was delivered unto an archaeological world emerging from its own infancy. Until well into the early 1920s, Paleolithic theory was still somewhat dominated by the unilinear framework devised and modied by de Mortillet (e.g., 1872, 1883) during the late nineteenth century. This advocated a progressive cultural evolution through a series of universal epochs, with each epoch being dened on the basis of supposedly diagnostic type-fossils. The three earlier Paleolithic epochs eventually recognized in De Mortillets schemeChellean, Acheulean, and Mousterianwere more-or-less characterized by various expressions of the handax: seen initially to increase in sophistication, but later to diminish in importance and give way to a dominance of ne ake-tools, as found in many cave sites. Accordingly, many British antiquarians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries concentrated their efforts on the accumulation of large numbers of handaxes, considered the most useful implements for classifying their open-air sites as well as the most aesthetically pleasing. As antiquarians often amassed their collections by buying artifacts from quarry-workers, simple akes and cores, unprized by collectors and therefore valueless to quarrymen, went largely unnoticed. So when, in the latter years of the nineteenth century, humanly struck akes were found in the Elephas antiquus beds at Clacton-on-Seadeposits well known for over half a century for their rich Pleistocene fauna (e.g., Brown, 1839, 1841)they merited only a couple of lines in a local journal (Kenworthy, 1898). By the early 1910s, however, extensive eld observations on the Clacton deposits by Samuel Hazzledene Warren (1911a, b, 1912) had been rewarded by the discovery of a large collection of int artifacts and the point of a broken wooden spear, recovered mostly from exposures of Pleistocene freshwater beds on the foreshore. The rst of Warrens (1912, p. 15) many statements on the Clacton industry noted that it was dominated by untrimmed akes, scrapers, pseudo-Mousterian trimmed akes, and sidechoppers, but that

The Clactonian Question not a single example of the usual ovate or pointed Palaeolithic types has yet been found, either by myself, or by other workers, so far as I am aware.

The yet in this statement shows that Warren had expected to nd handaxes eventually. In their absence he found it impossible to classify the material according to the prevailing framework and so concluded only that they were Paleolithic but not true Mousterian. The following year, another core-and-ake assemblage was discovered in the Lower Gravel at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe, Kent, stratied below the handax-yielding Middle Gravel (Smith and Dewey, 1913). As these excavations were commissioned to investigate whether the Swanscombe sequence contained a succession of handax industries similar to that found in the Somme Valley (it did), the unexpected core-and-ake industry received only scant attention:
The human work . . . was a surprise both as to its quantity and quality. . . . The industry consisted almost exclusively of thick akes, with prominent bulbs of percussion and a minimum of aking . . . handaxes of the ordinary type were entirely wanting. (Smith and Dewey, 1913, p. 182)

Comparable assemblages were subsequently found at Little Thurrock, Essex [by B. O. Wymer in about 1914 (see J. Wymer, 1968)] and in the Shelly Beds at Dierdens Pit (Ingress Vale), Swanscombe, the latter situated at a similar height to the Lower Gravel and Lower Loam in the Barneld Pit (Smith and Dewey, 1914). Handaxes had already been reported from Ingress Vale, but Smith and Dewey suggested that they had encountered a pocket of older gravel surrounded by younger, handax-bearing deposits. Later work refuted this claim, with handax elements being found in reexposures of Smith and Deweys original sections and mollusks with Rhenish afnities being recovered from the shell bed, the latter suggesting a correlation with the Middle Gravel at Barneld Pit rather than the Lower Gravel (Kennard, 1916; Kerney, 1959, cited by Bridgland, 1994). Still, Smith and Dewey were here clearly toying with the notion that nonhandax assemblages belonged to an earlier stage of the Paleolithic than the handax ones. Cynics may see this as an attempt both to match the Ingress Vale sequence with that at Barneld Pit and to reconcile the data with the Mortillean and eolithic frameworks seemingly favored by Smith (e.g., British Museum, 1921) by placing all the Swanscombe core-and-ake assemblages earlier than the handaxes and thus between the eolithic and the Chellean. Indeed, it was not the overall Paleolithic character of the cores and akes that was confounding (these were even noted to resemble those from the handaxrich Middle Gravel at Barneld Pit) but the total lack of true Palaeolithic implements (Smith and Dewey, 1914, p. 92). If the initial response to these anomalies was underwhelming, they would eventually take a central role in the changing frameworks used to

White

interpret Paleolithic materials. During the early 1920s, Warren received a visit from Abbe Henri Breuil, who assigned the growing collections from Clacton to the Mesvinian, named after the eponymous site of Mesvin, Belgium (Warren, 1922). Warren was deeply inuenced by Breuil, who, in league with developments in later periods, had abandoned the monolithic Mortillean framework in favor of multiple stone tool industries that corresponded to both temporal and geographical (cultural) variation. Warren (1922) seems to have accepted this immediately; he was nally able to reach a conclusion regarding the afnities of his Clacton nds and, in doing so, introduced several key concepts. 1. The ClactonMesvinian belonged to a separate industrial tradition from the handax cultures of the ChelleanAcheulean lineage (Warren, 1922, 1926, 1932). While he could suggest no antecedent for the ClactonMesvinian itself, he saw it as the precursor to the Mousterian, with Levallois industries forming the evolutionary bridge between them (Warren, 1922, 1923, 1924). From his reading of the Thames terrace sequence, Warren (1923) suggested that the two traditions had coexisted over a long period but had followed their own unique trajectory. 2. In a statement that was to be echoed by many later workers (Breuil, 1932; Oakley and Leakey, 1937), Warren (1924) also advanced the notion that different human races had created these two industrial traditionsthe ClactonMesvinian being made by Neanderthals, a primitive side-branch to evolution associated with the French Mousterian, and the ChelleanAcheulean the product of contemporary humans. 3. The ClactonMesvinian was a chopper-based industry, these choppers having zigzag alternately aked edges opposite a cortical or naturally at hand-grip (Warren, 1923, 1924). In defending his chopper interpretation against the rejoinder that they were just cores, Warren (1932) maintained that (i) they were always aked to produce a segmental edge balanced by the hand-grip, (ii) the akes struck from them would have been practically useless, and (iii) other objects in the Clacton assemblage demonstrated that the makers were well acquainted with the production of large akes and so did not need those struck from the choppers. 4. He considered and rejected the idea that the ClactonMesvinian represented preliminary working sites where handaxes were made and then removed for use elsewhere, maintaining the Clacton site to be the remnants of a living oor beside a stream where an extremely primitive industry had been produced (Warren, 1922).

The Clactonian Question

5. The Clacton-Mesvinian contained clumsy pointed implements, which might be considered unsuccessful attempts to copy the Chellean implement (Warren, 1922, p. 598). In later writings, Warren (1951) termed these proto-bouchers (protohandaxes), stating that had they not been found in Clactonian contexts they would have been classied as crude handaxes. This often overlooked observation is vital in assessing several aspects of the modern debate. The Mesvinian label did not last long. Continued work on the Mesvin type-site by Breuil (1926) led him to suggest that its archaeology should actually be divided into two industries, separated on the basis of stratigraphic position and technology. Only the more recent of the two, which contained Levallois elements, was considered true Mesvinian, the other being more ancient and lacking platform preparation. As Breuil compared the Clacton nds with the older Mesvin series, they could not, by denition, be Mesvinian. Breuil, however, elected not to offer a new name for either the Clacton material or the associated Mesvin lower industry at this point. It was Warren (1926) who proposed the name Clactonian in a footnote after reading Breuils withdrawal of the Mesvinian label. By the early 1930s, the idea of a separate Clactonian industry was becoming common currency and the number of assemblages assigned to it grew. The most signicant additions came from Chandlers studies of the Lower Gravel industries from Barneld Pit and Ricksons Pit, Swanscombe (Chandler, 1930, 1931, 1932a, b). Chandler reiterated Warrens opinion (contra Breuil) that the Clactonian was essentially chopper-based (Chandler, 1932a) (see Table I) and, furthermore, subdivided the Lower Gravel material into evolutionary substages, Clactonian I and II, based on the presence of two series (one abraded, the other fresh) with slightly contrasting characteristics (Chandler, 1931). Warren (1932) too began comparing Swanscombe and Clacton, revising his earlier opinion that the deposits at Clacton represented a tributary of the Thames and assigning them instead to the main river, thereby establishing a direct link between the two sites. Differences in their relative heights and aspects of their faunas were taken to indicate that the basal Swanscombe deposits were older than the Clacton bedsan argument putatively supported by the use of cruder techniques and the lack of small pointed forms in the Swanscombe Clactonian, which was therefore considered to be the ancestral form. The position of the Clactonian was ultimately secured by Breuil (1932) in a seminal paper that effectively set the agenda for the next 40 years. Breuil, who had already profoundly inuenced the thinking of Warren, Chandler, and a host of other British prehistorians, supported the idea [or

8 Table I. Some Key Typologies for the Clactonian Warren (1922, 1923, 1924) Large akes Trimmed akes Cores, discoidal cores Choppers Pointed implements Chandler (1932a) Flakes (wide & thick, high aking angle, prominent bulbs, unfaceted platforms) Cores Anvils with bruised edges Choppers Rough handaxes Strepy points Nodules with akes from one or two ends Peculiar tortoise cores Oakley and Leakey (1937) Flakes (as for Chandler) Cores Nosed scrapers Trilobed hollow scrapers Discoidal and quadrilateral scrapers Triangular points Beaked points Butt endscrapers Paterson (1937) Flakes Cores Choppers and hammerstones Pointed tools Side-scrapers Single & double notches Nosed scrapers Tools made on cores Multiple tools Warren (1951)

White

Pointed nodule tools Choppers Ax-edged tool Discoidal forms & ake disks Side-scrapers Bill-hook forms Endscrapers Calscrapers Bulb scrapers Subcrescent forms Proto-Mousterian ake points Piercers Flakes (broad platform, strong bulb, low aking angle) Cores Anvil-stones Notches Wymer (1968) Flakes (as for Warren, 1951) Cores Pebble chopper-cores Bi-conical chopper-cores Protohandax cores Nonstandardized ake tools

perhaps originated it, although some debt is owed to Hugo Obermaier (see Narr, 1979)] that distinct nonhandax assemblages had existed earlier than and contemporary with handax industries, a pattern which directly contradicted de Mortillets scheme. Breuil devised an elaborate framework involving several parallel cultural phyla of handax and nonhandax industries, the evolution of which was plotted against the Penck and Bruckner (1909) Alpine glacial sequence (Fig. 2). The scheme included two major substages of the Clactonian, charting its evolution through the GunzMindel and MindelRiss interglacials to its transformation into the early Levallois and

The Clactonian Question 9

Fig. 2. Breuils correlative framework for northwestern European handax and nonhandax assemblages. [Redrawn after Breuil (1932).]

10

White

Languedocien industries of the late MindelRiss and Penultimate interglacials (Breuil, 1932). It also redened the Clactonian as a ake-based industrychoppers were reduced to coresand expanded the number of sites assigned to it on a global scale. Almost instantaneously, the Clactonian had attained international status, dening an early phase in the development of a major Paleolithic cultural lineage. In Breuils terms, the Clactonian and Acheulean represented different populations whose main territories were Northeast and Southwest Europe, respectively, but which overlapped geographically at their margins in Northern France and Southern Britain. In the latter areas, assemblages with handaxes were argued to be generally associated with warm conditions but nonhandax assemblages with colder environments, which Breuil interpreted as evidence for habitat-tracking: the different populations following their preferred ecological zones (and associated fauna) north or south in response to major climatic uctuations. This occasionally led to the stratication of interglacial assemblages with handaxes above late glacial/ early interglacial nonhandax industries in the marginal areas.

Culture History and Orthodoxy, 19321974 Breuils framework was well received in Britain and many workers employed it or at least a variant thereof (Sackett, 1991). Typological seriation of lithic assemblages combined with concepts of separately evolving cultures provided archaeologists with a powerful if dubious dating mechanism and a seductive interpretative tool [(e.g., King and Oakley, 1936; Oakley and Leakey, 1937); see McNabb (1996b) for a summary of the stratigraphic gymnastics necessitated by the use of typological dating during this period and views on how data were manipulated to force them into accepted frameworks]. More formal denitions of what constituted a Clactonian assemblage were also developed (Table I), deploying artifact types and attributes that were supposedly rarely if ever found in the Acheulean. Indeed, in an archaeological world obsessed by type-fossils, it seems peculiar that the Clactonian was for so long dened purely by their absence. Consequently, several workers began to build typological, metrical, and technological parameters around the Clactonian, attempting to add positive features to the otherwise negative denition (e.g., Chandler, 1930; Warren, 1932, 1951; Oakley and Leakey, 1936; Paterson, 1937). This practice enhanced the primitive theme and included the idea that the Clactonian was produced by the clumsy block-on-block anvil technique (Breuil, 1932; Warren, 1932; Paterson, 1937). Unfortunately, for too many within the archaeological

The Clactonian Question

11

community of the 1930s onward, these denitions were seen not as rules of thumb, but irrefutable markers. Few heeded the tacit warnings that not all Clactonian akes shared the same features and that similar pieces could be found in Acheulean assemblages (Kelley, 1937; Warren, 1951), while skeptics of the cultural status of the Clactonian (e.g., van Riet Lowe, 1932; Caton-Thompson, 1946) were largely overlooked. For the next 40 years, archaeologists would see Clactonian inuences everywhere, arbitrarily dividing mixed assemblages into Clactonian and Acheulean elements based on the morphological properties of the akes and cores (e.g., Smith, 1933; Lacaille, 1940; Paterson and Fagg, 1941; Wymer, 1956; Palmer, 1975). The Clactonian had come of age and was running amok. The 1930s and 1940s saw several major British archaeologists become heavily involved in the constant juggling and shufing of assemblages into some sort of perceived order of events using stratigraphic, technological, and typological comparisons combined with an ingrained idea of cultural progression. There was no doubt that the Clactonian was real; the task was to chart its true development and relationships so that a concrete culturehistory could eventually be written. Excavations at Jaywick Sands, Clacton (Oakley and Leakey, 1937), resulted in a fourfold scheme for the Clactonian, even though there was no hint of technological development in the Clacton sequence itself. Swanscombe was considered to contain the oldest assemblages (Clactonian I and IIa), while the type-site (IIb) was argued to be more rened and to have witnessed the development of more resolved secondary working, a progression toward High Lodge (Clactonian III), with its elaborate Mousterian-type scrapers. [Ironically, High Lodge is now known to be pre-Anglian (Ashton et al., 1992b) and, thus, older than both Swanscombe and Clacton.] Marston (1937) produced a different scheme for Swanscombe, dividing the Lower Gravel material into three distinct Clactonian industries, separable mostly by size and condition, with another present in the Lower Loam. This conclusion was roundly rejected the following year by the Swanscombe Committee (Hawkes et al., 1938), who assigned the entirety of the Lower Gravel material to a single group, Clactonian IIa, with Clacton itself being IIb. At Barnham St. Gregory, Suffolk, Paterson (1937) presented details of ve local variants (the Brecklandian Clactonian) separable by context, condition, and typology, which showed a progressive development in technique uncontaminated by other cultures. These were overlain by an Acheulean that had exercised no inuence on the Clactonian peoples. Warren, though, remained suspicious of these serial subdivisions (Hawkes et al., 1938, p. 31). Concepts of interaction and acculturation between cultures encouraged deeper levels of interpretation. At Elveden, Suffolk, Paterson and Fagg (1940) found an assemblage consisting of abundant akes and cores, but

12

White

with a number of elegant handaxes. They termed this the Clactonian Acheul (or Upper Brecklandian Acheul) and envisaged a scenario where Acheulean knappers had borrowed Clactonian core-working and retouching techniques but, lacking a life-long familiarity with these techniques, had applied them in a inefcient, inferior manner. Again, regardless of warnings to the contrary, core-and-ake working and simple scraper production were seen as denitive Clactonian traits. A similar argument could also explain the High Lodge scraper industry (Clactonian III), long deemed problematic because its highly advanced Mousterian afnities could not be reconciled with its stratigraphic location (beneath an Acheulean industry) (Ashton et al., 1992). Within Breuils framework, these industries no longer had to be evolutionarily linked but could have simply coexisted. By implication, High Lodge could therefore have been be a site where ideas and techniques had blended or a hunting ground used by two distinct culture-groups (Oakley and Leakey, 1937). No assemblage was spared. Even the handax-rich industries from Stoke Newington and Caddington (Smith, 1894) were attributed to Clactonian III, but with a strong Acheulean inuence: a proposal in no small part related to Worthington Smiths diligence in collecting akes and cores (see below). The 1950s mark something of a watershed, during which the familiar image of the Clactonian began to crystallize. Improved dating and geological techniques began to highlight problems with tool-based sequences, questioning the contemporaneity of different industries as well as their internal evolution (McNabb, 1996b). Bordes (1950) pioneered an analytical method that emphasized whole assemblages above type-fossils. Continuing work in Africa (e.g., Leakey, 1951) further eroded the validity of the evolutionary schema devised for Europe, revealing not only very ancient nonhandax assemblages in East Africa, but the possible in situ development and evolution of the Acheulean out of these. Africa was increasingly seen as the center of human biological and cultural evolution (McNabb, 1996b). There was also growing awareness that in Asia, Central and Eastern Europe handaxes were extremely rare if not totally absent (Obermaier, 1924; Movius, 1948; McBurney, 1950). In this light, Oakley (1949) formalized the notion (previously voiced by Paterson, 1945) that the Clactonian was related to the pebble-tool cultures of Asia, the ChoukoutienSoan complex. For Warren (1951), this provided the answer to a question posed over 25 years earlier (Warren, 1924): From where had the Clactonian originated? It also supported his claim that the Clactonian was essentially a chopper-based industry. In addition, the idea that the Clactonian actually represented the earliest occupation of the British Isles that had not coexisted with handax cultures was becoming widely accepted (Oakley, 1961). The

The Clactonian Question

13

stratied cultural sequences at Barnham and Swanscombe, the paucity of evidence of pre-Anglian occupation, and the hint of a late Anglian occupation as represented by the rolled Clactonian specimens in the Swanscombe Lower Gravels (Clactonian I) were critical pieces of evidence supporting this view (Wymer, 1968). The fate of the primitive and now archaic Clactonian, in this reading, was assimilation by the more sophisticated later Acheulean migrants rather than evolution into other industries. Oakley (1964) later changed tack entirely: impressed by research on the Hope Fountain nonhandax industry of southern Africa (Jones, 1949; Clark, 1959a, b), interpreted as a woodworking variant of the Acheulean, he suggested reassigning the Clactonian to a seasonal or local activity facies of the Acheulean. However, in a review of the chronology and signicance of the Clactonian using only the evidence from the excavated sites of Hoxne, Clacton, and Swanscombe, Wymer (1974) presented a cogent argument for the primacy of the Clactonian within the British Paleolithic sequence. While a large number of sites remained only loosely dated, the general chronology proposed by Wymer tted the available evidence well. Rejecting the then meager evidence for pre-Anglian occupation, Wymer argued that the Clactonian had rst appeared in the late Anglian or Earliest Hoxnian, existed throughout the pre- and early temperate periods (pollen subzones HoI-IIb), and was replaced by Acheulean industries just before the late temperate (HoIIc). A period of overlap and perhaps direct competition was hypothesized (Wymer, 1974), although a later revision (Wymer, 1983) assigned the earliest in situ Acheulean at Hoxne to the late temperate (HoIIIb), making such overlap less likely. Wymer (1968) also supported the view that the Acheulean had entered Britain from the south, ultimately originating in Africa, but that the Clactonian had spread from the east, deriving from cultures of Central Europe and Asia (see also Roe, 1981). However, like Warren, he could nd no justication for any evolutionary subdivisions within the Clactonian (Wymer, 1968). By 1974, all of the tenets of the familiar in not classic denition of the Clactonian were in place. However, by the late 1970s the shock-waves of processual archaeology nally reached the Clactonian. The culturalhistorical interpretations that had been revised and modied during the previous 50 years were increasingly seen as theoretically unsatisfactory. Empirical developments also began to erode some of the most cherished beliefs about the Clactonian. For the rst time since 1922, many workers began to see the Clactonian as a problem that required radical rethinking. The past 25 years have witnessed many changes to both our empirical understanding and our interpretations of the Clactonian.

14

White

A MODERN SYNTHESIS A Primitive Technology? The Clactonian is still often regarded as a typologically and technologically primitive industry displaying inferior technique and skill, especially when compared to the Acheulean. From this perspective, Clactonian akes are characterized as being heavy and thick, with exaggerated percussion features, large unfaceted butts, obtuse aking angles, and high incidences of mishits or other knapping errors. Similarly, Clactonian cores are commonly perceived as technologically crude (especially compared to handaxes), apparently reecting the use of the simplistic, somewhat haphazard anvil technique. This primitive motif is reinforced by the apparent low frequencies of such simple akes and cores in handax assemblages, where the emphasis is on the more sophisticated handaxes themselves (Roe, 1981, p. 74). Arguably, this image was developed in an essentially theory-led manner, demonstrates a nave appreciation of the archaeological record, and is inherently awed (McNabb, 1992, 1996b). Early warnings that similar core-working techniques and virtually identical end products (akes, scrapers, cores) occurred in both Clactonian and Acheulean assemblages (e.g., Keeley, 1937; Warren, 1951; Wymer, 1968; Bordes, 1961; cf. Newcomer, 1971) were expressed more to prevent the uncritical application of prevalent denitions than explicitly to question the validity of the Clactonian as a whole. However, in his metrical analysis of 9 Clactonian and 14 Acheulean assemblages, Ohel (1979) concluded that, at two standard errors, there was signicant overlap between many aspects of akes and cores from the two assemblage types and that no differences, other than those resulting from collection bias, could be sustained. These results are no doubt valid and go some way to addressing certain aspects of the classic technotypological denition, but at two standard errors a high degree of overlap is probably inevitable (Wymer, 1979; Wenban-Smith, 1996). Furthermore, many of the metrical attributes used reveal little about the actual technologies employed in the two assemblage types; similar metrical overlap could probably be demonstrated between Clactonian debitage and that in the Oldowan or even aspects of the Neolithic (cf. Newcomer, 1979; Wymer, 1979). However, McNabbs (1992) comprehensive technological analysis of large well-documented/excavated assemblages produced the same conclusions. There were no tangible technological differences between the cores and the akes found in Clactonian and Acheulean assemblages, and no single or group of technological features could be used to characterize Clactonian artifacts. McNabb (1992; Ashton and McNabb, 1992) concluded

The Clactonian Question

15

that what we are, in fact, dealing with is a universal repertoire of coreworking techniques, common to both handax and nonhandax industries, that persisted in Britain from the earliest occupation down to the introduction of Levallois and probably beyond. The only supportable differences were typological, namely, the presence of handaxes and, more tentatively, standardized scrapers in Acheulean assemblages. The frequency in Acheulean assemblages of both these elements was found to be highly variable, however. Of course, handaxes are usually accompanied by handax thinning akes, produced by a totally different technological process to hard-hammer core working. The akes generated by these two activities are fundamentally different; if this was the stem of the perceived contrasts, then it is a case of like not being compared with like. The apparent paucity of simple core-and-ake working from collections of Acheulean material (e.g., Roe, 1981, p. 74) is very likely to be a product of two simple factors. First, in Acheulean contexts early collection biases usually led to handaxes being collected at the expense of everything else, while in Clactonian contexts similar practices probably favored heavy cores and akes: both of which helped to fuel if not self-fulll the classic denitions. This is well illustrated by the situation at Caddington and Stoke Newington, where Worthington Smith, a particularly careful collector who recognized the importance of retaining everything from a site, amassed large collections which included handaxes along with abundant cores and akes (Smith, 1894). This mixing of elements is probably what led to these sites being labeled Clactonian III (e.g., Warren, 1951). Second, handax manufacture results in a large number of perfectly serviceable akes that hominids could have used instead of those produced during core reduction, with especially large examples sometimes coming from the roughing-out stage (Newcomer, 1971; Bradley and Sampson, 1978, 1986). So, cores may genuinely be less frequent on some Acheulean sites (such as Boxgrove) because the by-products of handax manufacture could fulll most needs, but, like handaxes, the actual frequencies of cores in both situations are extremely variable (McNabb, 1992). The preferential use of the anvil technique in the Clactonian must also be rejected. This idea was almost certainly linked to the belief that the anvil technique, whereby a hand-held nodule was freely swung against a stationary anvil, was technically inferior to the use of a hand-held hammerstone (McNabb, 1992). However, experimental work has demonstrated that the use of a hammer-stone not only produces Clactonian-style akes more easily and more safely but that the anvil technique tends to produce akes with small bulbs and at ventral surfaceswholly un-Clactonian in fact (Baden-Powell, 1949; Warren, 1951; Newcomer, 1970). McNabb (1992) has further questioned the identication of anvils at Clactonian sites,

16

White

stating that most are in rolled condition, making it difcult to determine whether any localized areas of battering are articial or purely natural. There may, however, be a difference in the use of soft versus hard hammers, although this again is related to the occurrence of handaxes. In summary, some of the central dening features of the Clactonian must be rejected as unsupportable, being artifacts of subjective assessments of technological features and various sampling problems. McNabb uses this as evidence that the Clactonian does not exist. However, as shown by McNabbs own work, basic hard-hammer core working is the universal cornerstone of all Lower Paleolithic lithic technologythe underlying common denominator. It can be argued that this core-working/ake production was restricted by a rule of limited possibilities (Rolland, 1981) in which single, parallel, and alternate aking using multiple platforms (Ashton and McNabb, 1996a) practically exhausted the range of hard-hammer percussion technology without recourse to more specialized techniques such as Levallois. In other words, within the prevalent technological parameters these basic techniques were practically unavoidable, suggesting that gross similarities between the core-related debitage and knapping techniques seen in Acheulean and Clactonian assemblages should actually be expected, not found surprising. There may, though, be real differences in the frequency of a technique or the way in which it was applied, depending on individual skill or raw materials. Unfortunately, such a perspective leaves the Clactonian with a largely negative denition: a generalized core-and ake industry that lacks formal tools such as handaxes and standardized scrapers but that may contain choppers. However, as shown by the conicting interpretations of the past, this chopper element is open to some doubt. A recent experimental investigation concluded that they were most probably just waste-products of ake production and not deliberately fashioned tools (Ashton et al., 1992a). They are also found in British Acheulean assemblages. In reality, then, the Clactonian can be dened solely on the absence of handaxes, and perhaps also the morphology of the scrapers, although the latter requires further research.

Handaxes in the Clactonian? While handaxes are then, by denition, regarded as being absent from the Clactonian, crude pointed implements have always been a recognized element, often being described as poor imitations of handaxes by peoples unaccustomed to making such tools (Warren, 1922; Chandler, 1930) (see Fig. 3). Warren (1951), for one, was convinced that, if found in Acheulean

The Clactonian Question

17

Fig. 3. Nonclassic bifaces. (1, 3) Bed 2, Little Thurrock; (2) (?)Lower Gravel, Ricksons Pit, Swanscombe; (4, 5) Lower Gravel, Barneld Pit, Swanscombe. [1 and 3, after Conway (1996), reproduced by permission of the Lithics Studies Society; 2 and 5, after Ashton and McNabb (1994), drawings by Phil Dean British Museum, reproduced with the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum; 4, after Chandler (1930).]

18

Table II. Handaxes in the Clactonian Original context Unknown Unknown ?Over context ?Over context ?Over context ?Over context None, but no longer extant Missing BM (Warren) Missing BM (Warren) Ipswich Museum Ipswich Museum b b, e a, c a, c a, c c, h Ashmolean Museum b, g Problems Location Ref.(s.)a

Provenance

Type

Condition

Clacton-on-Sea, 1903

Point

Rolled

Clacton Foreshore, 1929 Clacton, Lion Point

Nonclassic on pebble

Very rolled

Unknown context; vague provenance Unknown context

Ovate

Rolled

Clacton, Lion Point

Nonclassic

Rolled

Clacton, Lion Point

Rolled

Clacton, Lion Point

Nonclassic

Rolled

Clacton, West Cliff

Rude handax (?nonclassic)

Clacton, West Cliff Foreshore Clacton, West Cliff Elephas antiquus bed Lower Gravel ? Lower Gravels Lower Gravels

From foreshore; originally in channel? From foreshore; originally in channel? From foreshore; originally in channel? From foreshore; originally in channel? Freshwater deposits with E. antiquus, etc. Unknown Missing Missing British Museum BM (Marston) BM (Dewey) None BM (Chandler)

c, h c, h d e d

Pseudochellean form (?nonclassic) Rude ovate (?nonclassic) Nonclassic

Fresh

?Over context, no longer extant None, but no longer extant ?Over context

Ricksons Pit, Swanscombe Barneld Pit, Swanscombe

Ovate

Fresh

Nonclassic

Fresh

Contradictory reports regarding context, possibly genuine None

White

Barneld Pit, Swanscombe Barneld Pit, Swanscombe

Nonclassic

Slightly rolled

Nonclassic ? ? BM (Waechter) j, k, l, m ?Over context BM (Chandler) e

Slightly rolled

Lower Gravels

None

BM (Chandler)

Nonclassic

Slightly rolled

Barneld Pit, Swanscombe Barneld Pit, Swanscombe Barneld Pit, Swanscombe Bed 2a Bed 2 Cobble band British Museum British Museum British Museum f f n

Ovate

Fresh

The Clactonian Question

Little Thurrock

Nonclassic

Fresh

Little Thurrock

Nonclassic

Fresh

Barnham

Ovate

Fresh

Contradictory reports regarding context, ?fallen from Middle Gravel ?Over association with Clactonian in Bed 1 ?Over association with Clactonian in Bed 1 None, caused change in assemblage attribution

(a) Roe, 1968; (b) Wymer, 1985; (c) McNabb and Ashton, 1992; (d) Ashton and McNabb, 1994; (e) McNabb, 1996b; (f) Conway, 1996; (g) Leeds, 1930; (h) Warren archive, BM; (j) Ohel, 1979; (k) Newcomer, 1979; (l) Conway et al., 1996; (m) Waechter, 1969; (n) Ashton, 1998.

19

20

White

contexts, most would have been accepted as rough handaxes. This was apparently never seen as a problem: such pieces were always crude and ill formed, totally dissimilar to the well-made, symmetrical tools common in Acheulean assemblages, while typical handax thinning akes were notably absent. Ashton and McNabb (1994) have recently argued that this perspective is based on an inadequate and narrow denition of the handax. They maintain that handaxes occur within a broad continuum of variation, at one end of which are situated the familiar classic forms, while at the other end lie nonclassic bifaces. The latter term relates to pieces which show some bifacial edge shaping and durable cutting edges, but which otherwise do not really demonstrate the deliberate imposition of a preconceived template, as implied in the traditional concept of the handaxe (Ashton and McNabb, 1994). Such nonclassics are found at varying frequencies in virtually all Acheulean assemblages, usually among larger numbers of classic forms, and in very small numbers in Clactonian ones (Table II). According to these authors, this shows that handax manufacture was operationalized not according to strict mental templates, but a exible mental construct that ranged from the most rened classic to the coarsest nonclassic, with much of this variation explicable in terms of different raw materials and human idiosyncrasy (Ashton and McNabb, 1994; White, 1998). This suggests that another of the dening characteristics of the Clactonian is based on erroneous archaeological systematics and that the nonclassic handaxes found in the Clactonian should be regarded as essentially identical to the more familiar classic forms of the Acheulean: several of which are, furthermore, also claimed to occur at some Clactonian sites (Ashton and McNabb, 1994; McNabb and Ashton, 1992; McNabb, 1996a) (Table II). Ashton and McNabb (1994) detect another continuum in the actual frequency of handaxes within Acheulean sites, ranging from those where handaxes and handax production dominate to the exclusion of almost everything else to those where these form only a minor component. Accordingly, sites where handaxes are absent or occur only as rare nonclassic forms (i.e., those termed Clactonian) should be considered as the extreme end of this continuum, rather than a distinct assemblage type. Again, the Clactonian is argued to be invalid as a separate industry. Before the Clactonian is consigned into oblivion, it should be noted that the precise provenance of many of the claimed Clactonian handaxes must be regarded as uncertain (cf. Wenban-Smith, 1996, 1998). As shown in Table II, only seven have anything approaching a rm provenance, while still fewer of the pieces from either Clacton or the Swanscombe Lower Gravel can be accepted without question. None of the handaxes from

The Clactonian Question

21

either of these sites was recovered in situ during controlled excavations; all were collected from contexts or in circumstances which cast doubt on their original provenance. Only the pieces from Little Thurrock and Barnham St. Gregory are from rm excavated contexts. In the case of Little Thurrock, though, the Clactonian material is from throughout Bed 1 (Wymer, 1957; Conway, 1996), while the bifaces came from within or just beneath Bed 2a, a ferrous hard-pan at the junction of the lower gravel and the brickearth that may mark an erosional surface (Conway, 1996; David Bridgland, personal communication). The relationship between the archaeological material from these two beds is thus extremely unclear, and besides, both of the handaxes are nonclassics. Only at Barnham, where several handax manufacturing scatters, an ovate, and a broken butt were recovered from precisely the same context as the old Clactonian collections, can a rm case be made for reconsidering previous cultural claims (Ashton et al., 1994a, b; Ashton, 1998). But what of these nonclassics? While I agree fully with Ashton and McNabbs (1994) basic principles concerning a continuum of variation, by redening the handax they have only reformulated an old problem, they have not removed it. If nothing else, we must still explain why, in some Lower Paleolithic contexts, handaxes of the classic type are apparently absent and why their proposed substitute, the nonclassic, is so rare; Table II contains only 19 entries, few unequivocal. In Acheulean assemblages, nonclassic handaxes occur alongside more classic forms. In these cases, nonclassics are regarded as rude or erratic (Smith, 1894) and generally explained as being the work of novices or the unskilled, pieces made in haste or those which conform absolutely to the shape of the raw materials. The critical point is that larger numbers of better handaxes always coexist with these rude forms, showing that the peoples responsible for these industries had a broad and exible approach to the socially maintained and transmitted mental and technological construct of the handax, which could be modied to meet the contingencies of the situation (White, 1998). This does not seem to be the case for the Clactonian. When present, handaxes seem to have been manufactured according to a very poorly maintained construct, producing artifacts that really qualify as bifaces by virtue of a minimum of bifacial working along an expedient edge. One should also remember that the notion that the Clactonian is the extreme end of a continuum of variation in handax frequency and expression, rather than a discrete phenomenon, is itself an interpretation and should not be taken as concrete evidence that the Clactonian is not a valid industry. Other authors interpret identical pieces as cores (see Vishnyatsky, 1999, Fig. 3.11). In summary, there are a few undoubted examples of nonclassic bifaces

22

White

from Clactonian contexts, generally those that featured in the original workers denitions, but the claims for classic forms must be treated with more caution. There has indeed been a reticence to accept these, which McNabb (1996b) sees as a stubborn unwillingness among British prehistorians to abandon the Clactonian. I do not wish to argue these pieces away but would suggest that until something more concrete and less anecdotal is forthcoming, they be regarded as pending inquiry. I also consider it arguable whether the occurrence of a few nonclassics is sufcient to demonstrate complete parity between the technotypological repertoires of the makers of Acheulean and Clactonian assemblages. However, that a single handax in a rm context can radically alter the industrial afnity of an assemblage does serve to highlight the fragility of a system that appeals to negative evidence, even if that evidence might be archaeologically meaningful.

The Corpus of Clactonian Sites McNabbs (1992) conclusions regarding the technological parity between Clactonian and Acheulean core and ake working demand that archaeologists abandon the practice of dividing assemblages into different cultural units based on the technotypological traits of debitage. Unless a valid difference can be identied, such as major contrasts in condition, it is therefore necessary to dismiss virtually out-of-hand those sites where a mixture of two assemblage types has been claimed simply on the presence of both Clactonian-style debitage and Acheulean handaxes. Sites or assemblages which fall into this category include Pureet Middle Gravel, Essex (Wymer, 1985; Schreve et al., 2000), Fordwich, Kent (Smith, 1933; Roe, 1981), Highlands Farm, Oxfordshire (Wymer, 1968), Dentons Pit, Reading (Wymer, 1968), Croxley Green, Hertfordshire (Wymer, 1968), and Yiewsley, Middlesex (Collins, 1978). There is, though, an unfortunate consequence to this: it is impossible to separate genuine nonhandax assemblages from handax assemblages should they become mixed (by natural agencies or due to poor stratigraphic control in older collections) in remotely similar condition. As the presence of a single handax or group of handax-manufacturing akes would usually demand an Acheulean label, it is thus very difcult to identify nonhandax assemblages and the proportion of assemblages assigned to the Acheulean may be articially high. Nonhandax assemblages may exist only in a few fortuitous cases where later mixing did not occur: a situation that, in itself (especially in secondary context assemblages), might suggest that handaxes were never available to be incorporated, i.e., were not made by the groups

The Clactonian Question

23

concerned. On the other hand, the corollary of such a proposition is that many assemblages deemed to be Acheulean may in fact be mixed, making comparisons between many Acheulean and Clactonian assemblages fundamentally problematic (Nick Ashton, personal communication). This debitage-based problem is unresolvable given our present state of knowledge but does not alter the basic division based on handaxes. This reinforces the view that the Clactonian must be based entirely on the absence of handaxes, or at least classic handaxes, an appeal to negative evidence that will not satisfy everybody. If this is considered valid, and not an artifact of sampling (see below), then only a small number of assemblages can be considered. The number of sites listed below might seem insignicant compared to the many hundreds of known Acheulean nd-spots, but this is a specious comparison. In addition to the issue of mixing noted above, the fact remains that within present systematics only one classic handax is necessary to create an Acheulean assemblage, but few would accept a Clactonian designation based on a handful of hardhammer akes or a core, of which there are many such occurrences (see Roe, 1968). In other cases, possibly genuine Clactonian assemblages [perhaps, for example, Grovelands Pit, Reading (Wymer, 1968), or Kirmington, Humberside (Bridgland and Thomas, 1999)] must be presently disregarded due to stratigraphic uncertainties and a general paucity of information (Roe, 1981), owing mostly to the age and nature of the investigations. Ohel (1979) suggests other reasons for the small numbers of Clactonian sites, including obliteration by ice sheet and very small population densities in restricted enclaves, but these might equally apply to the Acheulean. When compared only to well-stratied, well-excavated, and well-documented Acheulean assemblages (i.e., adhering to the same standards used in selecting the sample below), the proportion of Clactonian sites is more signicant. Clacton, Essex [Collections from Exposures at Lion Point, Jaywick Sands, West Cliff, Golf Course, and Holiday Camp (Figs. 4ac)]. The Clacton deposits represent a series of Middle Pleistocene channels of the Thames, incised into London Clay and Lower Holland Gravel. They are considered to be part of the Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath Formation (and its downstream equivalents) and are correlated with OIS 11, the Hoxnian interglacial (Bridgland, 1994). The main channel, over 400 m wide and attaining a maximum depth of 15 m, basically comprises the Freshwater Beds (divided into Lower and Upper units), overlain by the Estuarine Beds. Evidence of periglacial processes in the sequence from the Golf Course Site suggests that sedimentation began during the late Anglian (Singer et al., 1973), while the overall pollen prole demonstrates aggradation throughout most of the ensuing interglacial; the Upper Freshwater Beds being assigned to biozone Ho IIbIIIa, the Estuarine Beds to later

24

White

B
Fig. 4. Clacton. (a) Clacton location map showing distribution of Pleistocene deposits and various exposures. (b) Schematic section through Clacton area showing channel occurrences. (c) Section through main Clacton Channel, as exposed at the West Cliff. [All after Bridgland et al. (1999), with modications; reproduced by permission of Elsevier Publishing.]

The Clactonian Question

25

C
Fig. 4. Continued

Ho IIIa onward (Turner and Kerney, 1971). A diverse molluscan fauna shows the arrival of the Rhenish suite beginning in the uppermost Freshwater Beds, with a developed Rhenish Suite and the appearance of marine mollusks along with brackish/marine sh occurring later, in the Estuarine Beds (Turner and Kerney, 1971; Meijer and Preece, 1995; Bridgland et al., 1999). Clactonian artifacts, in both primary and secondary contexts, have been recovered from the Freshwater Beds at most Clacton localities, the richest concentrations occurring in the upper part of the Lower Freshwater Beds (Wymer, 1985). A mammalian fauna, considered to represent an early Hoxnian suite (Schreve, 1997; Partt, 1998), has also been recovered from these deposits. Both artifacts and mammalian remains are rare in the Estuarine Beds (Wymer, 1985). Warren (1932) and Oakley and Leakey (1937) also noted the presence of sparse Clactonian artifacts in gravel at Burnham-on-Crouch. Bridgland (1994, personal communication) suggests that these deposits are part of the Asheldham Channel Gravel, broadly correlated with the Lower Freshwater Beds at Clacton and Lower Gravel at Swanscombe. Swanscombe, Kent [Barneld Pit, Lower Gravel and Lower Loam; Ricksons Pit, Lower Gravel (Fig. 5)]. The Swanscombe deposits and their contained archaeological, palynological, and faunal assemblages are well

26

White

Fig. 5. Summary section of Pleistocene deposits and their contained archaeology at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe. [After Conway et al. (1996), with modications; reproduced with the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.]

The Clactonian Question

27

known and described in detail elsewhere (Wymer, 1968; Waechter, 1973; Bridgland, 1994; Conway et al., 1996). The deposits are part of the highest post-Anglian terrace of the Thames (Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath Formation) and represent a single, grossly ning-upward uvial sequence spanning the entire Hoxnian interglacial (OIS 11). Bridgland et al. (1985) divided this sequence into three broad aggradational phases: Phase I (Lower Gravel and Lower Loam), Phase II (Lower Middle and Upper Middle Gravel), and Phase III (Upper Loam and Upper Gravel). The Phase I deposits contain only Clactonian materialmostly in secondary context in the Lower Gravel, but mostly in situ with retting sequences in the Lower Loamwhile Phases II and III have yielded rich Acheulean assemblages in primary and secondary contexts (Smith and Dewey, 1913; Wymer, 1964; Waechter, 1970, 1971; Ashton and McNabb, 1996b). Rich interglacial molluscan and mammalian faunas have been recovered from most units. The faunal assemblages from the Phase I deposits are equated with those from the Clacton Freshwater Beds (Kerney, 1971; Turner and Kerney, 1971; Schreve, 1997), although those in the Phase II deposits show signicant differences, some suggestive of an episode of cooler, more open conditions (Conway et al., 1996; Schreve, 1997; Partt, 1998). The presence of a fully developed Rhenish molluscan suite in the Phase II deposits facilitates further correlation with the Clacton sequence, probably equating with the Estuarine beds (Kerney, 1971; Meijer and Preece, 1995), while a controversial pollen prole from Swanscombe has assigned the Lower Loam to pollen subzone IIb (Hubbard, 1996). The sequence at Ricksons Pit is a lateral continuation of the Barneld section and shows a broadly similar archaeological succession from Clactonian to Acheulean industries, although it generally lacks the loams found at the latter site and is considered less complex overall (Dewey, 1932; Wymer, 1968; Roe 1981; Bridgland, 1994). Globe Pit, Little Thurrock, Essex [Bed 1 (Fig. 6)]. This site is situated at a lower terrace level than Swanscombe and on the north side of the Thames. Some controversy has surrounded the age of this site, particularly concerning the reconciliation of its position in the Thames terrace staircase with its contained archaeology (e.g., King and Oakley, 1936; Bridgland, 1994). On the basis of altitude and local correlation, the deposits have most recently been assigned to the Lynch Hill/Corbets Tey Formation, correlated with late OIS 10 and OIS 9 (Bridgland and Harding, 1993; Bridgland, 1994). Although no faunal remains have been recovered from Globe Pit itself, the brickearths there are a continuation of the fossiliferous brickearths at Grays Thurrock. These yielded a rich mammalian fauna, assigned by Schreve (1997) to OIS 9. A poor pollen prole from Little Thurrock, once considered indicative of an Ipswichian date (West, 1969), must, in the light

28

Fig. 6. Section through the Pleistocene deposits at Globe Pit, Little Thurrock. [After Wymer (1985), with modications; reproduced with the kind permission of J. J. Wymer.]

White

The Clactonian Question

29

of a much more complex Quaternary sequence, now be seen as undiagnostic (Bridgland, 1994, p. 234). Clactonian akes and cores have been recovered in primary context from Bed I at Globe Pit, a gravel underlying interglacial brickearths; two nonclassic bifaces, akes, and cores have been recovered from Bed 2; while Acheulean material is claimed to be present in a separate gravel overlying the brickearth (Wymer, 1957, 1985; Snelling, 1964; Bridgland and Harding, 1993; Bridgland, 1994; Conway, 1996). There is some confusion regarding the relationship between Bed 1 and Bed 2: Bridgland (1994; Bridgland and Harding, 1994) considers them to be part of the same gravel, while Conway (1996) sees them as two discrete units separated by soliuction deposits. Bridgland (personal communication) has suggested that the top of Bed 2, which is heavily cemented and iron-panned, is an erosional surface, thus making the relationship between the archaeology in Bed 1 and that in the top of Bed 2 very dubious, even if the two are a single deposit. Aminostratigraphy, now somewhat controversially, placed this site in OIS 11 (Bowen et al., 1989). Pureet, Essex [Lower Gravel (Fig. 7)]. The sediments at Bluelands and Greenlands Pits, Pureet, represent Thames deposits of the Corbets Tey/Lynch Hill Formation, correlated with OIS 10/9/8 (Bridgland, 1994). The deposits are tripartite, with three broadly ning-upward sequences, each containing a different archaeological industry. The Lower Gravel and Coombe Rock has yielded evidence of only nonhandax material, the Middle Gravel Acheulean material, and the Upper Gravel a Levallois industry (Wymer, 1985; Schreve et al., 2000). The excavated assemblage from the lower deposits is small ( 100 pieces) and some caution is required, although further material has been recovered casually. A shelly sand below the Middle Gravel has produced an interglacial mammalian fauna, suggested by Schreve (1997; Schreve et al., 2000) to represent a diagnostic OIS 9 assemblage. The molluscan assemblage from the shelly bed is consistent with this. These data, along with the position of the site in the Thames sequence, suggest that the nonhandax material belongs to late OIS 10/early OIS 9, comparable with that at Little Thurrock. Barnham St. Gregory, Suffolk. The Barnham sequence consists of a deep glaciogenic channel lled with glacial outwash and Anglian till, into which has been incised a late glacial/early interglacial uvial channel (Lewis, 1998). This is lled to a depth of 7 m with fossiliferous interglacial clays and silts, passing laterally at the channel margins into yellowgray siltysands overlying a coarse cobble band (Lewis, 1998). This cobble band, a lag deposit that formed during the evolution of the channel, was the main source of raw materials throughout the human occupation of the site, although it was probably periodically inundated by water. Paterson (1937)

30

White

Fig. 7. Summary section of Bluelands Pit, Pureet. [After Wymer (1985), with modications; reproduced with the kind permission of J. J. Wymer.]

The Clactonian Question

31

described ve Clactonian assemblages (AE) in a range of conditions from within and atop this cobble band, with an Acheulean assemblage in the overlying brickearths. Wymer (1979) also found an in situ Clactonian assemblage from near the surface of the cobble band. Recent work by Ashton (1998; Ashton et al., 1994a, b), however, recovered fresh, in situ handaxes and handax-manufacturing akes from within and on top of the cobble band, at a location 50 m from the original investigations but sealed by the same black horizon (Ashton et al., 1994a, Lewis, 1998; Ashton, 1998). Therefore, the cultural afnities of Patersons and Wymers fresh Clactonian industry may need revising [although Wenban-Smith (1998) has argued that different areas of the cobble band were possibly exposed at different times, thus questioning the contemporaneity of the two areas]. Still, accepting that the two areas are contemporaneous and that the fresh assemblage is in fact Acheulean, the presence of a rolled Clactonian assemblage is still valid: no trace of handax manufacture has ever been found among the rolled series in the cobble band. A diverse temperate fauna of early Hoxnian (OIS 11) character was recovered from the channel silts (Partt, 1998), but the archaeological areas had been decalcied and no bones were preserved. Although broadly contemporary with the cobble band, it is thus difcult to relate precisely the fauna to a particular archaeological horizon in the cobble band. The very small assemblage (n 16) which denitely cooccurs with the early Hoxnian fauna in the channel silts contains no handax elements (Ashton, 1998). The Barnham evidence can thus be seen to support rather than contradict the chronology and relationship of the Acheulean and Clactonian. Cuxton, Kent (Lower Assemblage). At this site, Cruse (1987) described a sequence of uviatile sands and coarse gravels of the River Medway containing two archaeological series, separated by a depositional hiatus. The upper series was an Acheulean assemblage with abundant handaxes, but the lower assemblage was completely lacking in handaxes (Callow, in Cruse, 1987). Callow demonstrated statistically signicant differences between the two assemblages but, for reasons that are not altogether clear (possibly inferred age and context), warned against confusing the nonhandax industry with the Clactonian. Based on correlation of downstream proles, Bridgland (1996; personal communication, 2000) has recently suggested that the Cuxton deposits probably belong to the River Medway equivalent of the Lynch Hill/Corbets Tey Formation (OIS 1098) of the Thames, thus revising his earlier suggestion (Bridgland, in Cruse, 1987) that they were part of the Binney Gravel, the Medway equivalent of the later Taplow/Kempton Park Formation. Cruses excavation, which revealed the nonhandax to the handax assemblage succession, was situated at the base of the sequence. An earlier excavation by Tester (1965), however,

32

White

was located at the highest part of the outcrop and recovered, among a rich Acheulean assemblage, a small Levallois element. Although the true Levallois character of these pieces has been questioned (Callow, in Cruse, 1987), the whole sequence invites comparison with that at Pureet. Faunal and pollen preservation were poor, although the pollen did permit the tentative attribution of the Cuxton sequence to an interglacial period (Hubbard, cited by Cruse, 1987).

Chronology Several critical points regarding the chronology of the Clactonian have emerged since the 1970s. The most signicant is that the Clactonian does not represent the earliest human occupation of the British Isles. Acheulean assemblages are now well established in Pre-Anglian and Anglian (OIS 12) deposits at sites such as Boxgrove, Sussex (Roberts and Partt, 1999), High Lodge, Suffolk (Ashton et al., 1992b), and Warren Hill, Suffolk (Wymer et al., 1991). The Clactonian cannot therefore be considered to represent an early incursion of humans possessing only a primitive industry that predates the Acheulean. This might suggest that the Clactonian is a sporadically occurring variant of an elastic Acheulean (Rolland, 1998), with purely local signicance relating to raw materials, activity facies, etc. However, the chronological patterning emerging from recent lithostratigraphical and biostratigraphical Quaternary studies at the key sites (Bridgland, 1994; Schreve, 1997; Partt, 1998) suggests otherwise (Table III). The nonhandax sites briey described above can be divided into two groups. As shown in Table III, the rst group can all be equated with the early Hoxnian, a period correlated with pollen subzones HoIIIb, prior to the arrival of mollusks belonging to the Rhenish suite. At present no Hoxnian Acheulean assemblage is dated to this period. The Acheulean appears to arrive sometime immediately prior to, during or perhaps shortly after HoIIc, at which point Clactonian assemblages cease to occur (cf. Wymer, 1974; Bridgland, 1994, and references above). The second group can be equated with the same part of the next climatic cycle, i.e., late OIS 10/early OIS 9. At Pureet and Cuxton and, by lateral extrapolation, Little Thurrock, nonhandax assemblages are replaced partway through the cycle by handax industries, with the rst appearance of the Levallois technique in the British Isles documented for the overlying (OIS 8) gravels at the Pureet. The Levallois element excepted, this pattern is essentially identical to that at Swanscombe and perhaps also Barnham. The chronological distribution of nonhandax assemblages, as presently understood and subject to revision (especially in light of the more complex

Table III. Chronology of Nonhandax (Clactonian) Assemblages in the British Isles Evidence Reference(s) Bridgland & Harding, 1993; Bridgland, 1994; Schreve, 1997

Site

Age

The Clactonian Question

Globe Pit, Little Thurrock

Late OIS 10/early OIS 9

Cuxton

Late OIS 10/early OIS 9

Bridgland, 1996 Bridgland, 1994; Schreve, 1997; Schreve et al., 2000 Turner and Kerney, 1971; Wymer, 1974, 1985; Bridgland 1994; Schreve, 1997 Bridgland 1994; Schreve, 1997; Kerney, 1971; Conway et al., 1996 Lewis, 1998; Partt, 1998

Pureet

Late OIS 10/early OIS 9

Clacton, freshwater beds

Early Hoxnian (OIS 11)

Swanscombe, Phase I deposits

Early Hoxnian (OIS 11)

Barnham (rolled series)

Early Hoxnian (OIS 11)

Basal part of Lynch Hill/Corbets Tey Formation Lateral equivalent of overlying brickearth (Greys Brickearth) contains post-Hoxnian/preOIS 7 interglacial faunal suite Basal part of Lynch Hill/Corbets Tey Formation Basal Gravels of Lynch Hill/Corbets Tey Formation Underlies post-Hoxnian/pre-OIS 7 interglacial faunal suite Lower part of Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath Formation Early Hoxnian mammalian fauna Non-Rhenish molluscan fauna Early Hoxnian pollen prole Lower part of Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath Formation Early Hoxnian mammalian fauna Non-Rhenish molluscan fauna Conformably overlies Anglian till Early Hoxnian fauna in associated lateral deposits

33

34

White

uctuations revealed by the marine isotope record), therefore shows a recurrent occurrence, appearing at the end of a major glacial phase or beginning of the succeeding major interglacial, where they appear to exist alone until eventually replaced by Acheulean assemblages toward the latemiddle or end of the warm episode. The fact that, on both occasions, Acheulean assemblages occur in deposits older than each Clactonian event horizon also removes the problem of the very occasional handax from Clactonian sites. As some Clactonian sites are in secondary cotext, it would be more surprising if no stray handaxes had ever been incorporated in these deposits, a suggestion perhaps supported by the condition of many Clactonian bifaces (Table II).

A New Synthesis Recent work on the British Quaternary sequence and Paleolithic archaeology demands that the denition of the Clactonian be revised. On current evidence, nonhandax (Clactonian) assemblages can be described as follows. 1. A generalized Lower Paleolithic industry in which unprepared coreand-ake reduction dominates the assemblage, with very rare occurrences of bifacially worked tools termed by some authors nonclassic bifaces. The core-and-ake reduction is inseparable from that seen in assemblages with handaxes and probably represents a universal repertoire of simple, if not unavoidable, int-working techniques common to all hominid groups over the whole Pleistocene. Choppers may be present but are not unique identiers. 2. Only the presence/absence and technological or conceptual approach to bifacial tools (handaxes) seems clearly to divide the Clactonian from the Acheulean. Differences in scraper morphology may be another marker, although this contrast is as yet poorly dened. 3. The Clactonian does not represent the earliest occupation of the British Isles but has a recurrent occurrence. It rst appears at the end of the Anglian, persists through the earlier Hoxnian, and is then replaced by assemblages with handaxes. Handaxe assemblages do not seem to have been contemporaneous with nonhandax ones. This pattern is essentially repeated during the following climatic cycle (OIS 10-9). Interestingly, this pattern is not repeated during any later cycle, after the appearance of Levallois. Further renements may show that the Clactonian and Acheulean belong to the different substages of these interglacials, as evident in the marine record.

The Clactonian Question

35

4. The apparent relationship to pebble-tool industries of Asia is perhaps coincidental and supercial, reecting little more than the common use of a set of very basic (and hence universal) knapping techniques, mitigated by the type and nature of raw materials available. A closer connection may exist with neighboring European nonhandax assemblages, but this must be demonstrated, not assumed, and may also be entirely a function of a common technological repertoire.

European Nonhandax Assemblages Nonhandax assemblages are found in every inhabited region of Pleistocene Europe. In many areas, these have been historically regarded and interpreted in a very similar fashion to the Clactonian (cf. Bietti and Castorini, 1992; Mussi, 1995; Raposo and Santonja, 1995), with the probability of considerable antiquity and separate cultural traditions a recurring theme in the past, but raw material deciencies and activity facies the order of the day. Many others are attributed to the middle Paleolithic, after the widespread introduction of Levallois, and thus fall outside the scope of this review. A detailed discussion of nonhandax assemblages from the European Middle Pleistocene is not possible within the current review. However, a brief summary is necessary to demonstrate that nonhandax assemblages may occur in four main situations, each of which may require a different set of interpretations. 1. Very early nonhandax assemblages from southern Europe that may relate to a presently poorly dened Early Pleistocene colonization event, prior to 780 kyr, by nonhandax-making populations (Carbonell et al., 1998). If their dating and artifactual characteristics prove robust, such sites may include Atapuerca TD-6, Spain (Carbonell et al., 1999), Monte Poggiolo, Italy (Peretto et al., 1998), Isernia, Italy (Peretto, 1991), Dmanisi, Georgia (Gabunia and Vekua, 1995), and Orce, Spain (Gibert et al., 1998). 2. Geographically isolated nonhandax assemblages in areas of Europe where handaxes do not seem to have been widely produced. A largescale and well-known example is the disparity between southern and southwestern Europe where handaxes are very abundant during the Middle Pleistocene; and Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe where handaxes are very rare or completely absent prior to OIS 8 (Obermaier, 1924; McBurney, 1950; Svoboda, 1989; Bosinski, 1995). In the latter region nonhandax assemblages are present as either

36

White

small-sized industries where deliberate selection of small pebbles for smashing is suggested to have taken place (Svoboda, 1987, 1989), seen, for example, at Bilzingsleben (Mania and Weber, 1986; Mania, 1995), Schoningen (Thieme and Maier, 1995; Mania, 1995), and Vertesszollos (Vertes, 1965) or as heavy-duty tool-kits with large akes, as, for example, at Wallendorf (Toepfer, 1961, 1968). The division between these two technical provinces is often expressed in terms of a line trending NWSE and roughly corresponding to the course of the Rhine. Sites in the latter region which do contain handaxes, such as Markkleeberg (Grahmann, 1955; Mania and Baumann, 1980), Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Tode, 1953, 1982), and Hundisberg (McBurney, 1950; Toepfer, 1961), also contain Levallois elements and are post-OIS 8 in age (cf. Svoboda, 1989). A very similar pattern has recently been highlighted in Central Asia, where assemblages with handaxes cluster to the northwest and nonhandax ones to the southeast (Vishnyatsky, 1999); the Movius line provides another well-known case in East Asia (Movius, 1948; Schick, 1994). 3. Chronologically discrete nonhandax assemblages often found in the regions where handaxes do occur, but appearing during grossly dened periods when handaxes seem not to have been locally produced. Some may be contemporary with handax assemblages in more distant parts of Europe. The British Clactonian may be an example of this type of occurrence. 4. The sporadic occurrence of essentially nonhandax assemblages in areas with abundant and probably contemporaneous handax industries. As one is always dealing here with geological contemporaneity and lacking many ne-grained well-dated regional correlations, it is very difcult actually to pinpoint such occurrences. Two specic examples may be found in the sites on the Le Harve littoral (Ohel and Lechevalier, 1979) and at Elveden and Barnham (see below), while other nonhandax assemblages that may exist within a background of contemporaneous local or regional handax occurrences could include Quarto delle Cinfornare, Italy (Perretto et al., 1997), Venoso-Notarchirico alfa, E and E1, Italy (Mussi, 1995), and St. Colomban, Brittany (Monnier and Molines, 1993) as well as some of those assigned to the Tayacian. If we dismiss the idea of discrete cultural traditions coexisting in the same area, then local factors such as raw materials, functional facies, or even simple sampling problems may provide adequate explanations for the absence of handaxes in situation 4 and perhaps sometimes situation 2. However, these factors operate on temporal and spatial scales that are just too short to provide

The Clactonian Question

37

a convincing explanations for cases 1 and 3, and the majority of case 2, where long-term cultural, environmental, and organizational processes may be more suitable explanations. In other words, not all nonhandax assemblages across the whole of Europe necessarily have the same explanation. In my opinion, the dating of the British Clactonian clearly shows that there were periods when the hominids in Britain did not make classic handaxes; i.e., they belong to the third case outlined above and may require a radically different explanation from many other nonhandax assemblages. In the light of these perspectives and the new synthesis offered above, the remainder of this paper critically appraises the various interpretations offered over the past 20 years to explain the Clactonian.

INTERPRETING THE CLACTONIAN The Clactonian as an Activity Facies of the Acheulean The possibility that the Clactonian was not a discrete cultural entity but represented the localized or seasonal activities of a single nomadic group, who in some circumstances made handaxes but in others did not, has been considered by a number of authors (e.g., Warren, 1922; Oakley, 1964). One fairly common suggestion is that nonhandax assemblages may represent a special wood-working variant of the Acheulean, used in heavily wooded environments (e.g., Svoboda, 1989; see various comments below). A more testable model was proposed by Ohel (1979; Ohel and Lechevalier, 1979). Having concluded that both debitage groups were essentially part of the same parent population (see above), Ohel suggested that the Clactonian and Acheulean represented different parts of a continuous sequence of reduction occurring at separate places in the landscape. Clactonian occurrences were interpreted as preparatory workshops where handaxes were roughed-out, while Acheulean sites were viewed as places where handaxes were nished and used. [The spatial separation of the various knapping sets used in the production of Paleolithic implements has now been well documented at sites such as Boxgrove (Austin, 1994) and Barnham (Ashton, 1998).] This argument could adequately explain the difference between the two assemblage-typesespecially the absence of handaxes and thinning akeswith the Clactonian essentially representing waste material, failures, etc. In a separate case study, Ohel and Lechevalier (1979) used this argument to explain the difference between two sites on the Le Havre littoral: Station sous Marine, where handaxes were supposedly absent and Station Romain, which occurred in the same gravel deposit, yet contained abundant handaxes. In this case, it was argued that blanks were prepared

38

White

at the cliff collapse adjacent to Station sous Marine and then transported to Station Romain for nishing. For these two sites, part of a contiguous paleolandscape, this interpretation seems perfectly sound [see Austin (1994) for a similar phenomenon at Boxgrove]: the materials occur in the same context and same condition and both employed int from the cliff collapse [and handaxes were subsequently found to be present in small numbers at Station sous Marine (Callow, 1979)]. When extended to the British Clactonian, though, critical problems are apparent [see comments to Ohel (1979) and note implications for the wood-working hypothesis]. 1. The total absence of rough-outs, broken handaxes, and thinning ake does not support the idea that handaxes were roughed out at Clactonian sites. The roughouts identied by Ohel at Clacton and Swanscombe were interpreted as cores by other analysts (Bordes, 1979; McNabb, 1992). 2. Excavated handax and nonhandax assemblages shows similar percentages of fully cortical, semicortical, and noncortical akes, indicating that all stages of knapping were routinely conducted as part of both strategies (McNabb, 1992). This contradicts the proposal that the Clactonian is a roughing-out area. Previous claims for a high proportion of fully cortical akes probably reect collection bias or uvial sorting. 3. Sites such as Clacton and Swanscombe have been heavily smapled across large segments of extensive paleolandscapes. Furthermore, some assemblages from these sites represent secondary accumulations of diverse material swept off the surrounding river margins, over a considerable area and over a long but essentially unknown period of time. If handaxes had been made or nished anywhere in the vicinity, one might expect to nd evidence of them in the same gravel deposits (Newcomer, 1979). 4. There is no association between Clactonian assemblages and specic, high-quality sources of raw material, as one might expect if they were quarry sites for the Acheulean (Wymer, 1979; Roe, 1979). Clacton itself is on London Clay and the only local source of raw material is from the river gravels; some of the material may even be fresh int introduced to the site from some distance, hardly the hallmark of a classic quarry site. 5. Microwear has demonstrated that artifacts from the Clacton Golf Course Site had been used for diverse tasks, including wood-working, hide-scraping, and cutting meat (Keeley, 1980, 1993; Roe, 1979). This does not support the idea that Clactonian sites were merely prepara-

The Clactonian Question

39

tory workshops or that nonhandax assemblages represent only waste material. 6. The Clactonian and Acheulean do not overlap chronologically. To be accepted as parts of the same knapping complex, the two assemblage types should occur throughout the Lower Paleolithic on laterally continuous occupation horizons (cf. Roe, 1979). A more uid variant of the activity-facies model has recently been forwarded by McNabb and Ashton (McNabb, 1992; Ashton and McNabb, 1994). Rather than dichotomizing the Lower Paleolithic into two extreme assemblage types, they see handaxes as problem-solving devices, their frequency at a site being a direct correlate of the frequency of the problem. Clactonian sites were simply the extreme end of a continuum where few or no handaxes were required. In some cases, sampling biases may be operating, with excavations randomly revealing only those parts of an otherwise Acheulean signature where handaxes were not present. As shown by the recent discovery of in situ handaxes from the cobble band at Barnham, in a lateral continuation of the original Clactonian knapping oor (Ashton et al., 1994a, 1994b; Ashton, 1998), had the older excavations been situated elsewhere then handaxes would have been found and the site, or at least this level within it, would never have been classied as Clactonian. Yet there are difculties with this proposal. When addressing questions of sampling bias, it is wise to remember, as noted above, that some Clactonian assemblages are in secondary context, representing spatially and time-averaged remains of innumerable activity episodes. The widespread deposits that contain them have, furthermore, been very heavily sampled over almost a century, but still no classic handaxes have been found in a rm context. It is far easier to write off the high-resolution signatures, for example, the in situ Clactonian material from the Swanscombe Lower Loam and Barnham knapping oor, as the result of small-scale sampling that by pure chance happened to locate an area of a site where for some reason handaxes were not made or used (task-specic foci), than it is to write off the entire Clacton Freshwater Bed, Barnham rolled series, or Swanscombe Lower Gravel using the same principles. Their variously derived natures should militate against the behaviorally induced sampling errors associated with purely in situ signatures. Conversely, though, we can never be sure that 100% sampling of the Barneld Pit Lower Loam would not still have resulted in a total lack of handaxes. One must also question whether the nature of many Lower Paleolithic sites is adequate to answer questions concerning specic activities or activity foci. Even in the less disturbed nonhandax sites, we can rarely demonstrate occupational contemporaneity, only geological contemporaneity (Conard

40

White

and Adler, 1997). In other words, they are palimpsests of immeasurable and probably unrelated activity episodes undertaken by hominids to achieve a diverse range of shadowy tasks. In this case, intensity of occupation rather than activity facies is an equally parsimonious explanation for handax frequency but cannot explain their absence from the obviously well-used Clactonian sites. To support functional interpretations we require some gross explanation of why similar riverine locations with broadly comparable faunal and oral resources should be habitually used over extremely long periods for different taskssome requiring handaxes, some notand why in some of the latter situations handaxes were later found to be necessary. These are all issues that need to be directly addressed and, if possible, answered, not glibly and implicitly assumed. Recent use-wear analysis has demonstrated that in most cases handaxes were involved primarily in various butchery activities (Keeley, 1980, 1993; Mitchell, 1996, 1998)this seems to be the main problem they were designed to solve. To take this functional argument to its logical conclusion, then, nonhandax sites represent places where handaxes were not needed, suggesting that the hominids who produced these industries were not routinely butchering animals or at least the same types of animals or animal parts, perhaps indicating different subsistence or procurement strategies. This possibility has yet to be systematically tackled, although a cursory comparison of the cut-marked animal bones from sites such as Clacton, Swanscombe, Hoxne, and Boxgrove (cf. Binford, 1985; Stopp, 1993; Roberts and Partt, 1999; Simon Partt, personal communication, 1998) would suggest that it was not the case. Moreover, given the time scales involved, a variety of different strategies ranging from hunting to late access scavenging, and multiple varied other activities, would be expected at both types of sites. Furthermore, Keeleys (1980, 1993) use-wear analyses indicated that practically identical activities were carried out at both Clactonian and Acheulean sites. So, to accept the functional argument we must believe that, over vast periods of time, populations who had the capacity to make handaxes chose not to at certain locations, substituting other tools in their place, even though they were carrying out the same set of tasks inferred for those places where they did make them. In short, no permutation on the simple activity model, as currently formulated, is wholly convincing as an explanation for the Clactonian.

The Clactonian as a Response to Local Raw Materials Raw materials have in the past 20 years become something of an explanatory panacea for Lower Paleolithic archaeologists. Several studies

The Clactonian Question

41

have convincingly explained morphological variation in handaxes in terms of the type and form of the lithic resources used (Jones, 1979, 1981; Villa, 1983; Ashton and McNabb, 1994; White, 1996, 1998). The use of small or poor-quality raw materials has, of course, been advanced as a primary reason for the absence of handaxes in many European Paleolithic contexts (Cahen, 1985; Rolland, 1986; Mussi, 1995, Raposo and Santonja, 1995; Peretto et al., 1997, inter alia), implying that other implements were expediently substituted in their place by otherwise handaxe-making populations. Similarly, at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, sites assigned to the Developed Oldowan B, containing sparse and irregular bifaces and usually located within 1 km of the lake, were originally suggested to represent a different cultural tradition to the Acheulean, frequently found in river channels over 1 km away from the lake and exhibiting abundant, better-made handaxes (Leakey, 1971; 1975; Hay, 1976). More recent arguments, however, have proposed that differences in the type, form, and distribution of the raw materials used in these two industries (which may, in turn, relate to site location, function, landscape use, and procurement strategies) are the major cause of variation (Stiles, 1979; Jones, 1981). In his doctoral thesis, McNabb (1992) suggested that the raw materials at Clacton Golf Course and Jaywick Sands were small and rounded, making them totally inadequate for making handaxes. Raw material differences may also help explain some of the variation within the Clactonian itself, for example, the differences in ake size between sites, or the frequency of various knapping techniques. However, while little detailed experimental or analytical research has been conducted, a survey of the resources available at British nonhandax sites suggests that most cannot be explained in terms of raw material limitations. During the period represented by the Lower Gravel at Swanscombe, suitable blocks were available from the river gravel and possibly some local Chalk outcrops (Wymer, 1964). Indeed, the raw materials available from the Lower Gravel were often larger than those in the Lower Middle Gravel, yet the latter was used to make handaxes and the former was not. At Little Thurrock, large nodules were actively eroding from the local Chalk and were also available from the bull-head beds in the Thanet Sands (Bridgland and Harding, 1993). At Pureet, several complementary sources were available from the local Chalk and gravels (Schreve et al., 2000), while at Barnham experimental replication has clearly shown that selected ints from the cobble band were sometimes adequate for handax manufacture (WenbanSmith and Ashton, 1998). Even at Clacton, where the raw materials from Jaywick and the Golf Course have been described as predominantly small (Oakley and Leakey, 1937; Singer et al., 1973; McNabb, 1992), the range of akes and cores in the various collections [with cores occasionally reach-

42

White

ing 20 cm in maximum dimension (Singer et al., 1973)] allows us to infer that pieces of sufcient size and shape to support handaxes were present. Many were certainly larger than some of the nodules used to make handaxes at Foxhall Road, Ipswich, or Swanscombe, Lower Middle Gravel (White, 1996). When considering the raw materials at Clacton, it is also important to remember that the various exposures once formed part of a continuous, contemporaneous landscape. It is not adequate to summarize the entirety of the raw materials from Clacton based on select exposures in just one part of this contiguous landscape. Such explanations also view raw material use in a rather static fashion. It is true that most raw material procurement and use throughout the Middle Pleistocene were essentially local, if not immediate (cf. Villa, 1983, 1990; Green, 1988; Bergman et al., 1990; Floss, 1994; Feblot-Augustins, 1997; Tuffreau et al., 1997; Mosquera-Martinez, 1998; Ashton, 1998). However, when local raw materials were unsuitable, sparse, or nonexistent, then hominids were congnitively and organizationally capable of transporting raw materials from elsewhere, as shown by raw material imports at several European and African Lower Paleolithic sites (e.g., Villa, 1990; Wymer and Singer, 1993; Feblot-Augustins, 1997; Mosquera-Martinez, 1998; Schick, 1987; Potts, 1988). If the raw materials at the sites attributed to the Clactonian were really inadequate for handax manufacture, and the hominids there had really wanted to produce handaxes, then materials or tools could have been introduced from outside the immediate area, eventually provisioning the site by accident and/or design. This solution is suggested to have been chosen at sites such as Hoxne, Lower Industry (Wymer and Singer, 1993), and Bowmans Lodge and Wansunt, Dartford (White, 1998). Equally, other materials could have been substituted for stone, notable examples being the bone handaxes from lithic-poor locations such as Castel di Guido, Italy (Radmilli, 1984; Anzidei and Huyzendveld, 1992). If we assume that the raw materials at some Clactonian localities were unsuitable for handax manufacture, we still lack a methodology for determining whether hominids chose not to import materials or handaxes, or imported handaxes and then subsequently took them away again, or whether handaxes did not form a part of their technical tradition. Unlike some of the European examples highlighted above, in Southern Britain suitable raw materials would almost certainly have been available within a few kilometers and cannot be seen as a limiting resource on anything other than an immediate scale. In an attempt to overcome some of the criticisms of previous models, Ashton (1998) has recently proposed the static resource model, which merges key elements of raw material and activity-facies models into a more realistic and dynamic framework. Roughly following Schick (1987), this hypothesis presents human behavior as a varied but essentially predictable socially and

The Clactonian Question

43

environmentally driven response to the structure of the Pleistocene landscape. Valuable static resources would have encouraged repeat visits to a particular location, with the activities conducted there dependent on the resource being targeted. The archaeological signatures at these locations would be dense palimpsests of patches with overprinted scatters. If raw material were the resource targeted, then the assemblage might be dominated by locally discarded material with varying but probably low levels of import and export; but if some other resource, for example, vegetation, water, sleeping places, or shady trees, were targeted, then imported stone might have accumulated there by accident and design. Both locality types would be considered archaeological sites. In contrast, the exploitation of mobile resources might have led to a series of single discards or discrete activity areas over a much wider landscape and would be archaeologically invisible or evident only in the context of large-scale, landscape-based archaeological projects. Ashton (1998) illustrates the model with the examples of Barnham and Elveden, two sites suggested to be contemporaneous and to lie on different parts of the same river. At Barnham, knapping was concentrated around a source of raw materials formed by a coarse lag gravel. The nature of the available int is suggested to have encouraged core and ake working, with only occasional biface reduction on select nodules. At Elveden, though, int was available from a similar gravel and from a Chalk river-bankhere core and ake working is still common, but handaxes are far more abundant. So the rarity of handaxes at Barnham might reect, individually or in combination, the general unsuitability of the materials or a specic focus in group activity, the latter perhaps even conditioned by the former. Similarly, the presence of occasional handaxes in the brickearths overlying and concealing the cobble band might show a dramatic alteration in the resource structure of the local landscape, Barnham no longer a focus of activity but a place where isolated activities occurred. Here, handax frequency depends on the resources available and the fashion in which humans organized themselves in the landscape. This model obviously works perfectly for the primary context material at Barnham and Elveden, the occurrences for which it was specially constructed, but fares rather less well when applied to other contexts. At Pureet and Little Thurrock, for example, an Elveden-type situation obtained, but a Clactonian (Barnham-type?) assemblage resulted, while at Foxhall Road a Barnham-type situation seems to have prevailed, but an Acheulean assemblage resulted. The model is sufciently robust to overcome such objections, thoughthese examples might relate to a quite different group focus which may be functionally, behaviorally, socially, or raw materially driven, depending on its location and specic appeal. At present, the main problems in assessing this model are the chronological issues and the paucity of

44

White

primary context archaeological assemblages with similar levels of information potential and sampling intensity.

Ad Hoc Versus Planned Behavior In a recent overview, Wenban-Smith (1998) has also rejected claims that the Clactonian is nothing more than a locally forced variant or activity facies of the Acheulean. Instead, he views the Clactonian in a more traditional manner, as a discrete techno-temporo-cultural entity, and has attempted to explain its character, its chronological distribution, and its relationship to the Acheulean in terms of changing planning behavior (cf. Binford, 1979, 1989) in an evolving interglacial landscape. According to Wenban-Smith (1998), the Clactonian represents a simple ad hoc industry produced opportunistically in an extremely int-rich landscape. Such landscapes, he suggests, would have characterized Britain following major glaciations, when retreating ice sheets would have left a landscape littered with coarse uvial and outwash gravels. Consequently, for the human inhabitants, planning depth could be minimal and formal tools unnecessary: int could have been procured immediately wherever and whenever needed, with disposable sharp-edged akes and informal tools produced rapidly and with a minimum of efforts. Later in the interglacial, he envisages the landscape becoming int-poor, with vegetation and accumulating negrained sediments concealing many int sources. Under these conditions, an ad hoc strategy is considered to have been inappropriate, demanding the adoption of a more heavily planned strategy involving formal tools that could be carried in anticipation of future usei.e., handaxes. Inherent in this hypothesis is the notion that cultural drift and social learning could act upon the preexisting bifacial element within Clactonian assemblages to arrive at the Acheulean, with no exogenous introduction of new technical traits. The chronology of the Clactonian outlined above would demand that this transformation occurred at least twice, presumably as a response to similar conditions. The main question here is why the handax should be repeatedly reinvented, or at least greatly elevated in importance, form, and technique, to fulll the requirements of a portable tool, when a selection of akes or a selected core could provide the same portability and greater exibility. One might also ask why certain hominid societies, who presumably historically made handaxes, would simply abandon this practice for a proigate ad hoc strategy, even if they really could. The proposal that handaxes were habitually transported long distances around the landscape in anticipation of future use is based on speculation and extrapolation from very rare examples (few of which are from the

The Clactonian Question

45

Middle Pleistocene), rather than on accumulated observations or the bulk of the evidence. It is true that handaxes were often transported away from their location of manufacture, but they seem to be largely tethered to raw material sources; the distance traveled and time in which they stayed within the technical system seem not to have been that great (Binford, 1989). On a gross scale, the sheer density and association of handaxes and manufacturing debitage at many Acheulean sites, including those in primary context, actually suggest that handaxes were frequently produced, used, and discarded in the same broad location, without prolonged, long-distance transport. Specic high-resolution examples provide better evidence. In the Boxgrove horse-butchery episode (Pitts and Roberts, 1997; Austin et al., 1999), a group of hominids who had brought down a horse went on to gather raw material from the chalk cliff, manufacture handaxes, and use them in a single sequence that lasted only a few hours. Such behavior would seem to indicate a rather expedient approach to the manufacture and use of handaxes. Conversely, we know precisely nothing of the time or distances over which selected cores or akes were curated. Thus, there are few empirical reasons to suppose that, other than the obvious differences in the technological procedures involved in their manufacture, handax use involved greater planning depth than did the use of cores and akes. It is also necessary to examine Wenban-Smiths view of raw material resources and their usage. If hominids really responded to basic raw material availability in the fashion suggested, then we might expect such a response to local variations, with Clactonian assemblages found throughout an interglacial wherever raw materials were plentiful, but Acheulean ones where raw materials were scarce. Even the briefest survey shows that this was not the case. Most sites, both handax and nonhandax, are situated around sources of abundant raw materials, either Chalk exposures (e.g., Little Thurrock, Pureet, Elveden, Boxgrove) or river gravels (e.g., Swanscombe Lower and Middle Gravel, Barnham, Stoke Newington). A decent int source seems to have formed a principal group focus, although both assemblage types are also found in locations lacking an immediate source (Hoxne Lower Industry, Swanscombe Lower Loam), where other resources were likely targeted (Ashton, 1998) and where a degree of planning was required to provision either people or places with lithic materials (Kuhn, 1995). The relative rarity of artifacts in some of these ner deposits, though, perhaps conforms to Ashtons predictions regarding shifting group foci and isolated foraging events, rather than major changes in adaptive strategies. While Wenban-Smiths expectations regarding diminishing resources might be fullled at some sites, in others the observed pattern is precisely the opposite: at Hoxne, the immediate availability of int actually increased through the course of the Hoxnian, yet Acheulean industries occur throughout

46

White

(Singer et al., 1993; White, 1998). As highlighted above, in other cases there are no tangible differences in either the quality or the quantity of materials used to make handax and nonhandax assemblages within single sequences spanning an interglacial (e.g., compare the Swanscombe Lower Gravel and Lower Middle Gravel or Lower Loam and Upper Loam). It is therefore unclear why comparable resources (or lack of them) should elicit an ad hoc response during one period of time, but in another demand a more carefully planned strategy. It can be counterargued that it was not the immediate or local resources that conditioned hominid raw material use, but the gross availability on a regional scale. Given the small fragments of paleolandscapes that survive intact and the difculties of establishing contemporaneity, regional availability is difcult to assess. It might seem plausible to suggest that raw material availability would diminish throughout the course of an interglacial as a result of increased sedimentation and vegetation, but still most minimally disturbed Acheulean sites reveal an abundant regional raw material base within uvial systems, chalk outcrops, and clay-with-int exposures (White, 1998). Even if the early Hoxnian landscape were covered with outwash gravels as suggested by Wenban-Smith, these would not be uniformly coarse and many would be useless for artifact manufacture (David Bridgland, personal communication, 2000). Again, there is little evidence that raw materials were more plentiful on a regional scale during the earlier phases of interglacials, and while there was certainly a high level of subregional and local variation with (hardly predictable) uctuations through time, changes in the general availability of int across southern England cannot be demonstrated. Equally, various lines of environmental evidence from the Hoxnian interglacial indicate a complex sequence of vegetation change with complex mosaic environments (e.g., Turner, 1970; Kerney, 1971; Conway et al., 1996; Schreve, 1997). In general and at coarse scales, the pre- and early temperate periods, during which the Clactonian occurred, appear to have been as forested (albeit with different suites of species) as the late temperate, when the Acheulean is found, if not during certain episodes more heavily so. Even during the more open phases, when grassland covered a greater proportion of the landscape, it is unlikely that raw materials would have been more widely available. Indeed, whatever the precise character of the mosaic, the very existence of a rich vegetation presupposes the widespread presence of soils and ne-grained sediments over the British landscape from the early Hoxnian onward. None of this conforms to Wenban-Smiths predictions. Overall, while the in situ development of the Acheulean from the Clactonian must be seen as a possibility, the accepted portrait of rich open-mosaic woodland and abundant fauna in the Early Hoxnian does not

The Clactonian Question

47

conform to Wenban-Smiths post-apocalyptic vision of a barren, postglacial graveyard lacking in anything but int; nor does the Late Hoxnian appear to have been a silt-choked blanket forest in which int was a rare commodity.

Habitat, Group Size, and Social Learning In a major review of the chronology, environment, and cultural afliations of handax and nonhandax assemblages from western Europe, Collins (1969) proposed not only that the Clactonian and Acheulean were separate cultural lineages, but that there existed fundamental contrasts in habitat preference and subsistence strategies between them. According to Collins, the Clactonian was associated with heavily wooded environments and peoples who practiced an essentially nonhunting subsistence strategy, while Acheulean populations were characterized as big-game hunters who lived in open environments. While this interpretation was heavily criticized on both empirical and theoretical grounds (see comments to Collins, 1969), its main assumptions have proved remarkably resilient. Mithen (1994, 1996) has employed the proposed environmental division in an extremely though-provoking model that combines data from archaeology, primatology, ecology, and cognitive science. Mithens model hinges upon a simple theoretical premise: that tool behavior and social behavior are intimately linked, with social learning providing the bridge between them. The dynamics of social learning within a social unit are suggested to vary as a function of group size, which in turn is strongly correlated with the structure of the natural environment in which a particular group lives (Mithen, 1994 and references therein). Two basic situations can be described. 1. Hominids living in open environments will tend to congregate in large groups, a response to high predation risk and large resource packages. Such groupings will facilitate strong channels of social transmission, through exposure to many others and because predation, resource distribution, and the myriad interpersonal problems encountered in large groups will tend to produce strong kin bonds and frequent coalitions, meaning that young hominids will feed with and remain close to familiar adults from whom they can learn. This will lead to high levels of social transmission, especially imitation, which, in terms of lithic technology, will produce regular, shared patterns of artifact form and high knapping skill. However, some of these factors would also work to suppress innovation: even though juveniles tend to be the most innovative sector of society, close

48

White

proximity to adults will tend to discourage experimentation. If innovation did occur, though, it would spread quickly, the rate and extent of transmission reecting the high levels of social learning. 2. Conversely, hominids living in closed, forested conditions will tend to form small social units, because of small patchy food resources and low predation risk. With many of the internal costs of largegroup life relaxed, small groups are likely to be less cohesive and juveniles more independent of familiar adults. Channels of social learning will therefore be less well developed, with consequently higher levels of trial-and-error learning. These groups will lack a strong social tradition and their lithic technology will show diverse, unstandardized techniques and forms. Overall knapping skill among members of such groups will also be low, since the ratchet effect, whereby skill increases cumulatively through successive generations and is passed on through imitation, is largely absent. Innovation may be high, but any new developments will often fail to be transmitted, reecting poor channels of social learning. Mithens archaeological application of his model argues that the Acheulean, with its various expressions of handaxes and complex bifacial technology, reects the strong social learning of large groups living in nontemperate, open environments, while the Clactonian, with its lack of formal tools, putatively short procedural templates, and low skill requirements, reects the impaired social transmission of small groups living in closed temperate woodlands. While this model provides a stimulating new twist to an old debate, it suffers from a general lack of empirical support. The key problem lies in the association of certain assemblage types with particular environmental regimes, the foundation upon which the entire chain of reasoning is built. There is little or no basis for the assertion that the Acheulean is associated exclusively with nontemperate, open environments and the Clactonian with closed temperate woodlands. Breuil (1932) and McBurney (1950) even argued for precisely the opposite. It is true that some Acheulean assemblages have been recovered from cold or cool climate gravels. It is also true that some have a direct association with the inferred environment, being only minimally derived [e.g., Furze Platt, Berkshire (Bridgland, 1994), Pureet Middle Gravel (Schreve et al., 2000)], but most are heavily derived and abraded assemblages without a rm stratigraphic association (McNabb and Ashton, 1995). Moreover, when only primary context or in situ Acheulean occurrences are considered, the pattern is almost exclusively one of temperate conditions, for example, Swanscombe, Boxgrove, Elveden, Barnham, Hoxne, Caddington, Beeches Pit, and Hitchin, among others (Conway et al., 1996; Roberts and Partt,

The Clactonian Question

49

1999; Ashton et al., 1998; Singer et al., 1993; Sampson, 1978; Preece et al., 1991; Boreham and Gibbard, 1995). The same is true of Clactonian sites, although these do seem to rst appear during the late glacial/initial interglacial. On the other hand, there is some evidence that during the Hoxnian the appearance of the Acheulean did roughly correspond with an episode of more open conditions, but this has yet to be demonstrated for any other periods. There is, though, no direct association between the Clactonian and closed temperate woodlands. Indeed, while far from perfect and subject to various sampling biases, reconstructions of Quaternary environments suggest that the makers of both Clactonian and Acheulean assemblages shared a common habitat preference. Both are associated predominantly with temperate environments, both are frequently found adjacent to water sources, and most sites actually show a mixture of species suggesting a complex mosaic environment of both open and forested habitats. Indeed, there is considerable debate regarding the ability of Middle Pleistocene hominids to cope with heavily wooded environments (Gamble, 1986, 1987; Roebroeks et al., 1992). Open uviolacustrine habitats with diverse and abundant resources were extensively targeted by Middle Pleistocene hominids; the landscape at Clacton, for example, has been interpreted as open grassland in the valley oor, anked by woodland on the margins (Turner and Kerney, 1971). McNabb and Ashton (1995) further criticized Mithens characterization of Clactonian and Acheulean technology, again emphasizing the similarities in core-and-ake working techniques and maintaining that these fail to show any differences in social learning. I generally agree with Mithen (1995), however, that the regular handaxes in the Acheulean are an addition to a basic technology, and, as such, show some fundamental differences in the socially maintained knapping repertoires of Clactonian and Acheulean hominids, which may further relate to the contrasting dynamics of social learning and group size. The latter, however, do not correspond in this instance to differences in the habitats exploited. Wenban-Smith (1996) has pointed out that while Mithen suggests that wooded conditions would negatively affect social learning, other workers (e.g., Gamble, 1986, 1987) have argued that the difculties involved in coping with heavily forested environments would actually require strong and elaborate social networks, probably enhancing rather than suppressing social transmission. Nevertheless, Mithen should be applauded for raising the Clactonian debate above mere function and raw materials. While Mithens precise application of his model falters on empirical grounds, his renewed emphasis on social factors as a cause of some lithic variation is welcome and timely. Most recently, Kohn and Mithen (1999) have suggested that handaxes were

50

White

not exclusively part of a functional technology, but also a social one, being used to signal a males selective tness. The absence of handaxes from some contexts would here reect arenas where such social signals were unnecessary or where another strategy was being used.

Population Dynamics and Colonization Patterns Most of the recent interpretations of the Clactonian view it as a uniquely British phenomenon, ignoring the fact that for much of the past 500 kyr Britain existed as a peninsula of Atlantic Europe, with only short periods of insularity during each interglacial (Preece, 1995; White and Schreve, 2000). Many also ignore the temporal pattern, deeming it an artifact of sampling size and opting instead for localized adaptive solutions. White and Schreve (2000) have recently proposed a biogeographical ebb-and-ow framework for the human settlement of Britain, that links the patterns of occupation evident in the British archaeological record with the paleogeographical and climatic uctuations in the geological one (cf. Breuil, 1932). They suggest that extremely harsh environmental conditions would have caused the human abandonment of Britain during each glacial maximum. Once the climate had ameliorated and the landscape had sufciently recovered to support a thriving biomass, human (and animal) populations from Europe would have begun to recolonize the virtually empty British landmass across the dry North Sea and/or Channel Basin (cf. Turner, 1992). Employing the recurrent, diachronous pattern of exclusive nonhandax occurrences during the early Hoxnian and subsequent (OIS 9) interglacial, giving way to Acheulean signatures later in each interglacial, they propose that the Clactonian is a signature of initial recolonization with only the main, later occupation being host to handax-making populations. The absence of this pattern from subsequent interglacials is argued to relate to the introduction of Levallois technology to much of northwestern Europe around OIS 8. Later recolonization events therefore herald the arrival of Levallois technology and a different behavioral repertoire (cf. Bridgland, 1994; White and Pettitt, 1996). However, this proposal does not actually explain the Clactonian, only its chronological distribution. It is still necessary to outline precisely why the earliest recolonization should have been characterized by nonhandax assemblagesa much more difcult undertaking. White and Schreve raise several possibilities, all with inherent strengths and weaknesses. It is possible that the Clactonian relates to the process of pioneering colonization. Hypothetically, if the earliest settlers to move across the North Sea and Channel Basins after a major glaciation were characterized by

The Clactonian Question

51

small populations, relatively isolated on the periphery and in restricted enclaves, then the social conditions they experienced might have induced variations in social learning along the lines proposed by Mithen (1994; cf. Aldhouse Green, 1998; Toth and Schick, 1993), causing handaxes to phase out of use over a minimal number of generations. Later groups may have been larger and maintained larger networks, allowing them to disperse and settle with no deleterious effects on social learning or technology. WenbanSmith (1996) offered a similar proposal based on Mithens approach, suggesting that pre-Anglian social groups could have experienced environmental stresses and social splintering during the Anglian glaciation, causing a breakdown in social learning and the loss of sophisticated handax technology. The Clactonian would, in this account, represent an impoverished variant of the Acheulean (Narr, 1953, cited by Narr, 1979), a short-lived technical tradition in which the knowledge of handax manufacture had been lost. In this regard, it is interesting to note that in other areas of the Old World the earliest evidence of human occupation often appears to commence with a nonhandax signature, for example, Ubeidiya, Israel (BarYosef, 1994), Atapuerca, Spain (Carbonell et al., 1999) and Monte Poggiolo, Italy (Peretto et al., 1998). Alternatively, one must consider a more traditional interpretation built upon those advanced by Breuil (1932), Wymer (1968), or Roe (1981): that the Clactonian and Acheulean reect two waves of colonization by different populations from different regions of Europe, each with its own historically maintained technological repertoire. In this case, early colonization may have originated from the nonhandax province of Northwestern and Central Europe, with the Acheulean arriving later from more distant refugia to the south. Such an explanation does not require us to return to vilied notions of separately evolving parallel phyla ethnically dened by their material culture, but advocates uctuating local and regional populations whose material culture and technical traditions vary by virtue of social distance (Mellars, 1996): they do not share a common landscape, a common recent history, or a common body of technological knowledge. To accept this, though, one needs to understand why the Acheulean should occur second on two separate occasions, and while it is possible to outline several possible factors (ecological barriers, social barriers, physical barriers, or more distant refugia), it is almost impossible to choose between them. Of course, in this (and the above) explanation, one has to bear in mind the possibility that Clactonian populations were not replaced by, but evolved in situ into, Acheulean ones. Also, while such an interpretation may explain the Clactonian itself, it does not explain why there seem to be no handaxmaking populations in Northern and Central Europe until the arrival of the Levallois technique. This is clearly an issue in need of further research.

52

White

The Island Britain model expands the Clactonian problem to a European scale and demands that we look once again at population ebb and ow, colonization patterns, social structure, and relationship (or lack of) between hominid networks in various parts of Europe. However, at present it leaves many questions unanswered.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The history of the Clactonian faithfully chronicles the story of Lower Paleolithic research in the twentieth century. The different interpretations offered over the past 80 years reect their position in history and their popular life span generally lasts only as long as the paradigm that spawned them. One of the biggest problems we now face relates simply to the historical baggage surrounding the Clactonian and Acheuleaneven the names conjure up particular sets of popularly perceived traits. Perhaps the time truly has come to abandon the traditional nomenclature (cf. Roberts et al., 1995; McNabb, 1996b), but this semantic solution will bring us no closer to resolving the Clactonian question. There are currently two basic approaches to the Clactonian. The rst accepts that there are two assemblage-types, those with handaxes and those without, and offers solutions to explain this. As shown above, workers in this tradition attempt to dene and evaluate the Clactonian in their own terms, but never do they seriously question its validity as an archaeological phenomenon, whatever it may mean behaviorally, socially, ecologically, or technologically. The second way is to see the Clactonian as an anachronism, a construct originally created to ll a void in a now-moribund theoretical paradigm aimed at recognizing identity rather than behavior, later sustained by special pleading and selective acknowledgment of the data, and which British archaeologists now seem bafingly unable to abandon (McNabb, 1996b). In this view, the Clactonian just does not exist. Although I have previously subscribed to this view, I can no longer support it. Various models have been used to explain the Clactonian and the data may have been manipulate and (mis-)read to t them, but the Clactonian was not created out of nothing to fulll the preconceptions of a theoretical framework. Indeed, for some 10 to 20 years after the rst discoveries at Clacton, Swanscombe, and Little Thurrock, the data could not be explained at all and were largely ignored (e.g., British Museum, 1926). Later, as new theoretical frameworks developed, they were forced to take account of the Clactonian. The bottom line is that there is an observable archaeological phenomenon to be explained, not explained away.

The Clactonian Question

53

Running through all arguments regarding the Clactonian is the assumed status of the handax and its use as an instrument of taxonomic classication, an actuality that to some extent is a product of its role in the history of archaeology. Still, the longevity and abundance of handaxes across much of the Old World can leave little doubt that they were a signicant part of hominid adaptive life and an important social phenomenon, being culturally generated and transmitted over hundreds of millennia through the nonbiological mechanisms of social learning (see summaries by Steele and Shennan, 1996; Mithen, 1994). While their form may vary as a response to local raw material conditioning (Jones, 1979, 1981; White, 1998), we should not be afraid of attributing their overall presence/absence to differences in the bodies of social knowledge possessed by Paleolithic societies and the ways in which these were maintained and transmitted. Others have questioned whether the paleosocial dynamics of Middle Pleistocene hominids in Europe could sustain separate handax-, and non-handax-making populations (Rolland, 1998) and whether activity facies and raw materials do not provide a better answer. However, the truth is that we know very little of how Paleolithic societies were organized, but we do know that raw materials and function can explain only some nonhandax assemblages. To deny the possibility of such social traditions does not tally with what we know of even chimpanzee material culture (Whiten et al., 1999). If the importance of handaxes has been overplayed, if they were not as vital to Paleolithic society as they seem to be to Paleolithic archaeologists, then there should be few problems in conceiving of entire populations who habitually survived without them. After all, one of the most frequently asked questions about handaxes is why hominids went to all that bother when a simple ake would have sufced. The alternative is to see a uniform global technology (raised above the baseline elements), which seems even less likely, given the widespread assumption that hominid populations in Europe were fairly small and isolated with circumscribed, exclusive networks that ebbed and owed in response to climatic and other variables (Gamble, 1986, 1993; Foley and Lahr, 1997). Perhaps the surprising thing is the relative unity within the Lower Paleolithic record, although this probably stems from the rudimentary nature and limited possibilities inherent in the technologies that survive. So how do we explain the Clactonian? There is no easy answer to this, and as the data are often of alarmingly low resolution and lend themselves to different interpretations, all with their own inherent strengths and weaknesses, it is actually difcult to reach a solid conclusion. However, any explanation now needs to accommodate the typological disparity but technological parity with the Acheulean and the proposed recurrent temporal

54

White

distribution at the beginning of two separate Middle Pleistocene interglacials. Much of the time, explanations are favored not by virtue of their intrinsic capacity to explain the data but by how well they relate to a popular, often passing, theoretical trend. What is clear, though, is that the basic canon of processual interpretation favored in recent years, such as function and raw materials, although possibly good explanations for some nonhandax occurrences (Villa, 1983; Rolland, 1998), does not really seem to t the Clactonian evidence very well at all, at least not in any short-term, monocausal formulation. We could possibly come up with reasons why handaxes are absent from most Clactonian sitesmaking a special case for each instancebut this smacks of arguing the Clactonian away in order to conform to the current geist, rather than actually explaining it. Such a procedure usually stalls when the chronology is brought into the picture. We need to provide not only much more dynamic and realistic pictures of hominid behavior (e.g., Ashton) but seriously to reconsider the possibility that the presence/absence of handaxes reects true differences in the societies and social technologies of different hominid groups (e.g., Mithen). To assess such ideas, more sites of the caliber of Barnham and Swanscombe are certainly required and several old sites need new attention with specic questions in mind. A complete resolution will perhaps never be forthcoming, but we certainly need to rethink the introspective approach that has characterized the Clactonian debate for much of the past 20 years. The Clactonian needs to be reexamined on a regional, European scale, taking account of paleosocial dynamics, adaptive strategies, and the sociohistorical effects of proximate circumstance on long-term traditions. We will never understand the Clactonian if we look no farther than the end of Clacton Pier.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Nick Ashton, Paul Pettitt, and David Bridgland for reading and commenting on early drafts of this paper. I am particularly indebted to John McNabb and Nick Ashton for many stimulating hours spent debating the Clactonian question over the past 10 years. As always, any inadequacies remain entirely my own.

REFERENCES
Aldhouse-Green, S. (1998). The archaeology of distance: Perspectives from the Welsh Palaeolithic. In Ashton, N., Healy, F., and Pettitt, P. (eds.), Stone Age Archaeology: Essays in Honour of John Wymer, Lithic Studies Society, London, pp. 137145.

The Clactonian Question

55

Anzidei, A. P., and Huyzendveld, A. A. (1992). The Lower Palaeolithic site of La Polledrara di Cecanibbio (Rome, Italy). In Herring, E., Whitehouse, R., and Wilkins, J. (eds.), Papers of the Fourth Conferences of Italian Archaeology: New Developments in Italian archaeology Part 1, Accordia Research Centre, London, pp. 141153. Ashton, N. M. (1998). The spatial distribution of the int artefacts and human behavior. In Ashton, N. M., Lewis, S. G., and Partt, S. (eds.), Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 198994, British Museum (Occasional Paper 125), London, pp. 251258. Ashton, N. M., and McNabb, J. (1992). The interpretation and context of the High Lodge industries. In Ashton, N. M., Cook, J., Lewis, S. G., and Rose, J (ed.), High Lodge: Excavations by G. De G. Sieveking 196268 and J. Cook 1988, British Museum Press, London, pp. 164168. Ashton, N. M., and McNabb, J. (1994). Bifaces in perspective. In Ashton, N. M., and David, A. (eds), Stories in Stones, Lithic Studies Society (Occasional Paper 4), London, pp. 182191. Ashton, N. M., and McNabb, J. (1996a). Appendix 1: Methodology of int analysis. In Conway, B., McNabb, J., and Ashton, N. M. (eds.), Excavations at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe, 196872, British Museum (Occasional Paper Number 94), London, pp. 241246. Ashton, N. M., and McNabb, J. (1996b). The int Industries from the Waechter excavation. In Conway, B., McNabb, J., and Ashton, N. M. (ed.), Excavations at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe, 196872, British Museum (Occasional Paper Number 94), London, pp. 201236. Ashton, N. M., McNabb, J., and Partt, S. (1992a). Choppers and the Clactonian: A reinvestigation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 2128. Ashton, N. M., Cook, J., Lewis, S. G., and Rose, J (eds.) (1992b). High Lodge: Excavations by G. De G. Sieveking 196268 and J. Cook 1988, British Museum Press, London. Ashton, N. M., Bowen, D. Q., Holman, A., Irving, B. G., Kemp, R. A., Lewis, S. G., McNabb, J., Partt, S., and Seddon, M. B. (1994a). Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 19891992. Journal of the Geological Society of London 151: 599605. Ashton, N. M., McNabb, J., Irving, B. G., Lewis, S. G., and Partt, S. (1994b). Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian int industries at Barnham, Suffolk. Antiquity 68: 585589. Austin, L. (1994). the life and death of a Boxgrove biface. In Ashton, N. M., and David, A. (eds.), Stories in Stone, Lithics Studies Society Occasional Paper 4, London, pp. 119126. Austin, L. A., Bergman, C. A., Roberts, M. B., and Wilhelmson, K. H. (1999). Archaeology of excavated areas. In Roberts, M. B., and Partt, S. A., (eds.), Boxgrave: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, English Heritage, London, pp. 312377. Baden-Powell, D. F. W. (1949). Experimental Clactonian technique. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 15: 3841. Bar-Yosef, O. (1994). The Lower Paleolithic of the Near East. Journal of World Prehistory 8: 211265. Bergman, C. A., Roberts, M. B., Collcutt, S., and Barlow, P. (1990). Retting and spatial analysis of artefacts from quarry 2 at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulian site of Boxgrove, West Sussex, England. In Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S., Arts, N., and Winter, D. (eds.). The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Stone Artefacts, Holos, Bonn, pp. 265282. Bietti, A., and Castorini, G. (1992). Clactonian and Acheulean in the Italian Lower Paleolithic: A re-examination of some industries of Valle Giumentina (Pescara, Italy). Quaternaria Nova II: 4159. Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35: 255273. Binford, L. R. (1985). Human ancestors: Changing views on their behaviour. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 292327. Binford, L. R. (1989). Isolating the transition to cultural adaptations: An organisational approach. In Trinkaus, E. (ed.). The Emergence of Modern Humans: Biocultural Adaptations in the Later Pleistocene, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1841.

56

White

Bordes, F. (1950). Principes dune methode detude des techniques de debitage et de la typologie du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. LAnthropologie 54: 1934. Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen, CNRS, Paris. Bordes, F. (1979). Comments on Ohel. Current Anthropology 20: 714. Boreham, S., and Gibbard, P. L. (1995). Middle Pleistocene Hoxnian stage interglacial deposits at Hitchin, Hertfordshire, England. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 106: 259270. Bosinski, G. (1995). Stone artefacts of the European Lower Palaeolithic: A short note. In Roebroeks W., and Van Kolfschoten T. (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden and European Science Foundation, Leiden, pp. 263268. Bowen, D. Q., Hughes, S., Sykes, G. A., and Miller, G. H. (1989). Land-sea correlations in the Pleistocene based on isoleucine epimerization in non-marine molluscs. Nature 340: 4951. Bradley, B. A., and Sampson, C. G. (1978). The Cottages Site. In Sampson, C. G. (ed.), Paleoecology and Archaeology of an Acheulian Site at Caddington, England, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, pp. 83138. Bradley, B. A., and Sampson, C. G. (1986). Analysis by replication of two Acheulean artefact assemblages. In Bailey, G. N., and Callow, P (eds.), Stone Age Prehistory: Essays in Memory of Charles McBurney, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 2944. Breuil, H. (1926). Paleolithic industries from the beginning of the Rissian to the beginning of the Wurmian glaciation. Man 116: 176179. ` Breuil, H. (1932). Les industries a eclats du paleolithique ancien, I.-Le Clactonien. Prehistoire 1: 125190. Bridgland, D. R. (1994). Quaternary of the Thames, Chapman and Hall, London. Bridgland, D. R. (1996). Quaternary river terrace deposits as a framework for the Lower Palaeolithic record. In Gamble, C. S., and Lawson, A. J. (eds.), The English Palaeolithic Reviewed, Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Wessex, pp. 2339. Bridgland, D. R., and Harding, P. (1993). Middle Pleistocene Thames terrace deposits at Globe Pit, Little Thurrock, and their contained Clactonian industry. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 104: 263283. Bridgland, D. R., and Thomas, G. (1999). Kirmington. In Bridgland, D. R., Horton, B. P., and Innes, J. B. (eds.), The Quaternary of North-East England: Field Guide, Quaternary Research Association, London, pp. 180184. Bridgland, D. R., Gibbard, P. L., and Harding, P. (1985). New information and results from recent excavations at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe. Quaternary Newsletter 46: 2539. Bridgland, D. R., Field, M. H., Holmes, J. A., McNabb, J., Preece, R. C., Selby, I., Wymer, J. J., Boreham, S., Irving, B. G., Partt, S., and Stuart, A. J. (1999). Middle Pleistocene interglacial Thames-Medway deposits at Clacton-on-Sea, England: Reconsideration of the biostratigraphical and environmental context of the type Clactonian Palaeolithic industry. Quaternary Science Reviews 18: 10946. British Museum (1921). A Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone Age, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brown, J. (1839). Fossil bones from Clacton. Essex Literary Journal [for 1839]: 29. Brown, J. (1841). A list of fossil shells found in the uvio-marine deposits at Clacton in Essex. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 1 7: 427429. Cahen, D. (1985). Fonction, industrie et culture. In Otte, M. (ed.), La signication culturelle des industries lithiques, BAR International Series 239, Oxford, pp. 3951. Callow, P. (1979). Comments on Ohel. Current Anthropology 20: 715716. Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Rodrguez, X. P., Sala, R., and van der Made, J. (1998). Out of Africa: The dispersal of the earliest technical systems reconsidered. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18: 119136. Carbonell, E., Dolores Garca-Anton, M., Mallol, C., Mosquera, M., Olle, A., Xose, P., Rodrguez, X. P., Sahnouni, M., Sala, R., and Verges, J. M. (1999). The TD6 level lithic industry from Gran Dolina (Burgos, Spain): Production and use. Journal of Human Evolution 37: 653693. Caton-Thompson, G. (1946). The Aterian industry: Its place and signicance in the Palaeolithic

The Clactonian Question

57

world. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 76: 87130. Chandler, R. H. (1930). On the Clactonian Industry at Swanscombe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 6: 79116. Chandler, R. H. (1931). On the Clactonian Industry and report of eld meeting at Swanscombe. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 42: 175177. Chandler, R. H. (1932a). Notes on types of Clacton implements at Swanscombe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 6: 377378. Chandler, R. H. (1932b). The Clacton Industry and report of eld meeting at Swanscombe (II). Proceedings of the Geologists Association 43: 7072. Clark, J. D. (1959a). Further excavations at Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 89: 201232. Clark, J. D. (1959b). The Prehistory of Southern Africa, Harmondsworth. Collins, D. (1969). Culture traditions and environment of early man. Current Anthropology 10: 267316. Collins, D. (1978). Early Man in West Middlesex, HMSO, London. Conard, N., and Adler, D. (1997). Lithic reduction and hominid behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic of the Rhineland. Journal of Anthropological Research 53: 147175. Conway, B. (1996). Bifaces in a Clactonian Context at Little Thurrock, Grays, Essex. Lithics 16: 4146. Conway, B., McNabb, J., and Ashton, N. M. (ed.), Excavations at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe, 196872, British Museum (Occasional Paper Number 94), London. Cruse, J. (1987) Further investigations of the Acheulian site at Cuxton. Archaeologia Cantiana 56: 3981. de Lumley, H. (1976). La Prehistoire Francaise, 1, Paris, CNRS. de Mortillet, G. (1872). Classication des diverses periodes de Iage de la pierre. Comptes ` rendus de la VI congres internationale danthropologie et archeologie prehistorique 6: 432444. de Mortillet, G. (1883). Le prehistorique: antiquite de lhomme, Bibliotheque des Sciences Contemporaines, Paris. Dewey, H. (1932). The Palaeolithic deposits of the Lower Thames Valley. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 88: 3556. ` ` Feblot-Augustins, J. (1997). La circulation des matieres premieres au Paleolithique. ERAUL 75. Floss, H. (1994). Rohmaterialversorgung im Palaolithikum des Mittelrheingebietes, Habert, Bonn. Foley, R., and Lahr, M. M. (1997). Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern humans. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7: 336. Gamble, C. S. (1986). The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gamble, C. S. (1987). Man the shoveller: Alternative models for Middle Pleistocene colonisation and occupation in northern latitudes. In Soffer, O. (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, Plenum, New York, pp. 8198. Gamble, C. S. (1993). Exchange, foraging and local hominid networks. In Scarre, C., and Healy, F (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 3544. Gibert, J., Gibert, L. I., Iglesias, A., and Maestro, E. (1998). Two Oldowan assemblages in the Plio-Pleistocene deposits of the Orce Region, Spain. Antiquity 72: 1725. Grahmann, R. (1955). The Lower Paleolithic site of Markkleeberg and other comparable localities near Leipzig. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society NS 45: 509687. Green, S. (1988). Pontnewydd Cave: the selection of raw materials for artefact manufacture and the question of natural damage. In MacRae, R. J., and Moloney, N. (eds.), NonFlint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, BAR British Series 189, Oxford, pp. 223232. Gubania, L., and Vekua, A. (1995). A Plio-Pleistocene hominid from Dmanisi, East Georgia, Caucasus. Nature 373: 509512. Hawkes, C. F. C., Oakley, K. P., and Warren, S. H. (1938). The industries of the Barneld

58

White

Pit. Swanscombe Committee Report on the Swanscombe Skull. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 68: 3047. Hay, R. L. (1976). Geology of the Olduvai Gorge, University of California Press, Berkeley. Hubbard, R. (1996). The palynological studies from the Waechter excavations. In Conway, B., McNabb, J., and Ashton, N. M. (eds.), Excavations at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe, 196872, British Museum (Occasional Paper Number 94), London, pp. 191200. Jones, N. (1949). The Prehistory of Southern Rhodesia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jones, P. (1979). The effects of raw materials on biface manufacture. Science 204: 815816. Jones, P. (1981). Experimental implement manufacture and use: A case study from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. In Young, J. Z. (ed.), The Emergence of Man, Royal Society, London, pp. 189195. Keeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Keeley, L. H. (1993). The utilisation of lithic artefacts 1, microwear analysis of lithics. In Singer, B. G., Gladfelter, and Wymer, J. (eds.), The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England, Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 129138. Kelley, H. (1937). Acheulian ake tools. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 3: 1528. Kennard, A. S. (1916). The Pleistocene succession in England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 2: 249267. Kenworthy, J. W. (1898). Palaeolithic akes from Clacton. Essex Naturalist 17: 15. Kerney, M. P. (1971). Interglacial deposits at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe, and their molluscan fauna. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 127: 6986. King, W. B. R., and Oakley, K. P. (1936). The Pleistocene Succession in the lower part of the Thames Valley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2: 5276. Kohn, M., and Mithen, S. (1999). Handaxes: Products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518526. Lacaille, A. D. (1940). The palaeoliths from the gravels of the Lower Boyn Hill Terrace around Maidenhead. Antiquaries Journal 20: 245271. Leakey, L. S. B. (1951). Olduvai Gorge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leakey, M. D. (1971). Olduvia Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Leakey, M. D. (1975). Cultural patterns in the Olduvai sequence. In Butzer, K., and Isaac, G (eds.), After the Australopithecines, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 477493. Leeds, E. T. (1930). Antiquities from Essex in the Ashmolean Museum, Essex. Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society 19: 248. Lewis, S. G. (1998). Quaternary geology of East Farm brick pit, Barnham and the surrounding area. In Ashton, N. M., Lewis, S. G., and Partt, S. (eds.), Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 198994, British Museum (Occasional Paper 125), London, pp. 2378. Mania, D. (1995). The earliest occupation of Europe: The Elbe-Saale Region (Germany). In Roebroeks W., and van Kolfschoten T. (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden and European Science Foundation, Leiden, pp. 85102. Mania, D., and Baumann, W. (1980). Neufunde des Acheuleen von Markkleeberg bei Leipzig (DDR). Anthropologie 18: 237248. Mania, D., and Weber, U. (1986). Bilzingsleben III, Veroffentlichungen des Landesmuseum fur Vorgeschichte Halle 32, Berlin. Marston, A. T. (1937). The Swanscombe skull. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 67: 339406. McBurney, C. B. M. (1950). The geographical study of the older Palaeolithic stages in Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 16: 163183. McNabb, J. (1992). The Clactonian: British Lower Palaeolithic Flint Technology in Biface and Non-Biface Assemblages, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London. McNabb, J. (1996a). More from the cutting edge: Further discoveries of Clactonian bifaces. Antiquity 70: 428436. McNabb, J. (1996b). Through a glass darkly: An historical perspective on archaeological research at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe ca. 19001964. In Conway, B., McNabb, J., and

The Clactonian Question

59

Ashton, N. M. (eds.), Excavations at Barneld Pit, Swanscombe, 196872, British Museum (Occasional Paper Number 94), London, pp. 3152. McNabb, J., and Ashton, N. M. (1992). The cutting edge: Bifaces in the Clactonian. Lithics 13: 410. McNabb, J., and Ashton, N. M. (1995). Thoughtful akers: A reply to Mithen. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5: 289298. Meijer, T., and Preece, R. C. (1995). Malacological evidence relating to the insularity of the British Isles during the Quaternary. In Preece, R. C. (ed.), Island Britain: A Quaternary Perspective, Geological Society (Special Publication No. 96), London, pp. 89110. Mellars, P. A. (1996). The Neanderthal Legacy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Mitchell, J. C. (1996). Studying biface butchery at Boxgrove: Roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. Lithics 16: 6469. Mitchell, J. C. (1998). Functional Analysis of British Lower Palaeolithic Handaxes: A Study Utilising Optical Microscopy, Computer Aided Image Analysis and Experimental Archaeology, Unpublished D. Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford. Mithen, S. J. (1994). Technology and society during the Middle Pleistocene. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4: 333. Mithen, S. J. (1995). Reply to Ashton and McNabb. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5: 298300. Mithen, S. J. (1996). Social learning and cultural tradition: interpreting early Palaeolithic technology. In Steele, J., and Shennan, S. (eds.), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: Power, Sex and Tradition, Routledge, London, pp. 207229. Monnier, J.-L., and Molines, N. (1993). Le Colombanien: Un facies regional du Paleolithique inferieur sur le littoral Armoricano-Atlantique. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 90: 283294. Mosquera-Martinez, M. (1998). Differential raw material use in the Middle Pleistocene of Spain: The evidence from Sierra de Atapeurca, Torralba, Ambrona and Aridos. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 1528. Movius, H. (1948). The Lower Paleolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38: 329420. Mussi, M. (1995). The earliest occupation of Europe: Italy. In Roebroeks, W., and van Kolfschoten, T. (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden and European Science Foundation, Leiden, pp. 2749. Narr, K. (1979). Comment on Ohel. Current Anthropology 20: 717. Newcomer, M. (1970). Conjoined akes from the Lower Loam, Barneld Pit, Swanscombe. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute for 1970: 5151. Newcomer, M. (1971). Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology 3: 8594. Newcomer, M. (1979). Comment on Ohel. Current Anthropology 20: 717. Oakley, K. (1949). Man the Tool-Maker, 1st ed., British Museum (NH), London. Oakley, K. (1961). Man the Tool-Maker, 5th ed., British Museum (NH), London. Oakley, K. P. (1964). Frameworks for Dating Fossil Man, Wiedenfeld & Nicholson, London. Oakley, K. P., and Leakey, M. (1937). Report on excavations at Jaywick Sands, Essex (1934), with some observations on the Clactonian industry, and on the fauna and geological signicance of the Clacton Channel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 3: 217260. Obermaier, H. (1924). Fossil Man in Spain, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Ohel, M. Y. (1979). The Clactonian: An independent complex or an integral part of the Acheulean. Current Anthropology 20: 685726. Ohel, M. Y., and Lechevalier, C. (1979). The Clactonian of Le Harve and its bearing on the English Clactonian. Quartar 2930: 85103. Otte, M., Yalcinkaya, I., Kozlowski, J., Bar-Yosef, O., Lopez Bayon, I., and Taskiran, H. (1998). Long-term technical evolution and human remains in the Anatolian Palaeolithic. Journal of Human Evolution 34: 413431. Palmer, S. (1975). A Palaeolithic site at North Road, Pureet, Essex. Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society 7: 113. Partt, S. (1998). The interglacial mammalian fauna from Barnham. In Ashton, N. M., Lewis,

60

White

S. G., and Partt, S. (eds.), Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 198994, British Museum (Occasional Paper 125), London, pp. 111148. Paterson, T. T. (1937). Studies in the Palaeolithic succession in England: No 1. The Barnham Sequence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 3: 87135. Paterson, T. T. (1945). Core, culture and complex in the Old Stone Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 9: 119. Paterson, T. T., and Fagg, B. E. B. (1940). Studies in the Palaeolithic succession in England II: The Upper Brecklandian Acheul (Elveden). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6: 129. Penck, A., and Brucker, E. (1909). Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter, Tauchmitz, Leipzig. Peretto, C. (ed). (1991). Isernia la Pineta, nuovi contributi scientici, Istituto regionale per gli studi storici dei Molise, Italy. Peretto, C., La Rosa, M., Liboni, A., Milliken, S., Sozzi, M., and Zarattini, A. (1997). Le gisement de Quarto delle Cinfonare dans le cadre Paleolithique inferieur de lItalie ouestcentrale. LAnthropologie 101: 597615. Peretto, C., Amore, F. O., Antoniazzi, A., Antoniazzi, A., Bahain, J. J., Cattani, L., Cavallini, E., Esposito, P., Falgueres, C., Gagnepain, J., Hedley, I., Laurent, M., Lebreton, V., Longo, L., Milliken, S., Monegatti, P., Olle, A., Pugliese, N., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Sozzi, ` M., Ungaro, S., Vannucci, S., Verges, J. M., Wagner, J. J., and Yokoyama, Y. (1998). ` Industrie lithique de CaBelvedere di Monte Poggiolo: Stratigraphie, matiere typologie, remontages et traces dutilisation. LAnthropologie 102: 343465. Pitts, M., and Roberts, M. B. (1997). Fairweather Eden: Life in Britain Half a Million Years Ago as Revealed by the Excavations at Boxgrove, Century, London. Potts, R. (1988). Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai, Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Preece, R. G. (ed.) (1995). Island Britain: A Quaternary Perspective, Geological Society (Special Publication No. 96), London. Preece, R. G., Lewis, S. G., Wymer, J. J., Bridgland, D. R., and Partt, S. (1991). Beeches Pit, West Stow, Suffolk (TL 798719). In Lewis, S. G., Whiteman, C. A., and Bridgland, D. R. (eds.), Central East Anglia and the Fen Basin, Field Guide, Quaternary Research Association, London, pp. 94104. Radmilli, A. M. (1984). Scavi nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore a Castel di Guido presso Roma. In Bietti Sestieri, A. M. (ed.), Preistoria e Protostoria nel territorio di Roma, Lavori e Studi di Archaeologia pubblicati dalla Soprintendza Archeologica di Roma, Roma, pp. 7585. Raposo, L., and Santonja, M. (1995). The earliest occupation of Europe: The Iberian peninsula. In Roebroeks, W., and van Kolfschoten, T. (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden and European Science Foundation, Leiden, pp. 725. Roberts, M. B., and Partt, S. A. (1999). Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex, English Heritage, London. Roberts, M. B., Gamble, C. S., and Bridgland, D. R. (1995). The Earliest occupation of Europe: The British Isles. In Roebroeks, W., and van Kolfschoten, T. (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden and European Science Foundation, Leiden, pp. 103128. Roe, D. A. (1968). A Gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Sites, Council for British Archaeology Research Report No. 8, London. Roe, D. A. (1979). Comment on Ohel. Current Anthropology 20: 718. Roe, D. A. (1981). The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Periods in Britain, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Roebroeks, W., Conard N. J., and van Kolfschoten, T. (1992). Dense forests, cold steppes and the Palaeolithic settlement of Northern Europe. Current Anthropology 33: 551586. Rolland, N. (1981). The Interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic Variability. Man (NS) 16: 1542. Rolland, N. (1986). Recent ndings from La Micoque and other sites in southwestern and Mediterranean France: Their bearing on the Tayacian problem and Middle Palaeolithic emergence. In Bailey, G. N., and Callow, P. (eds.), Stone Age Prehistory: Essays in Honour of Charles McBurney, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 121151. Rolland, N. (1998). The Lower Palaeolithic settlement of Eurasia, with special reference to

The Clactonian Question

61

Europe. In Petraglia, M. D., and Korisettar, R. (eds.), Early Human Behaviour in Global Context: The Rise of Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record, Routledge, London, pp. 187220. Sackett, J. (1991). Straight archaeology French style: the phylogentic paradigm in historical perspective. In Clark, G. A. (ed.), Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 109140. Sampson, C. G. (ed.) (1978). Paleoecology and Archeology of an Acheulian Site at Caddington, England, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. Schick, K. (1987). Modeling the formation of early stone age artefact concentrations. Journal of Human Evolution 16: 789807. Schick, K. (1994). The Movius Line reconsidered: Perspectives on the earlier Paleolithic of eastern Asia. In Ciochon, R., and Corruccini, R. S. (eds.), Integrative Pathways into the Past, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 569596. Schreve, D. C. (1997). Mammalian Biostratigraphy of the Later Middle Pleistocene in Britain, Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of London, London. Schreve, D. C., Allen, P., Blackford, J. J., Bridgland, D. R., Keen, D. H., and White, M. J. (2000). Late Middle Pleistocene environments of the Lower Thames: Sedimentology, palaeontology and archaeology of the Corbets Tey Formation at Pureet, Essex, UK (in press). Singer, R., Wymer, J. J., Gladfelter, B. G., and Wolff, R. (1973). Excavations of the Clactonian industry at the Golf Course, Clacton-on Sea, Essex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39: 674. Smith, R. A. (1933). Implements from high level gravels near Canterbury. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7: 165170. Smith, R. A., and Dewey, H. (1913). Stratication at Swanscombe. Archaeologia 64: 177204. Smith, R. A., and Dewey, H. (1914). The high terrace of the Thames: Report on excavations made on behalf of the British Museum and H. M. Geological Survey in 1913. Archaeologia 65: 187212. Smith, W. G. (1894). Man the Primeval Savage, Stanford, London. Snelling, A. J. R. (1964). Excavations at the Globe Pit, Little Thurrock, Grays, Essex, 1961. Essex Naturalist 31: 199208. Steele, J., and Shennan, S. (1996). Introduction. In Steele, J., and Shennan, S. (eds.), The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: Power, Sex and Tradition, Routledge, London, pp. 141. Stiles, D. (1979). Early Acheulean and developed Oldowan. Current Anthropology 20: 126129. Stopp, M. (1993). The utilisation of lithic artefacts 2, taphonomic analysis of the faunal assemblage, In Singer, B. G., Gladfelter, and Wymer, J. (eds.), The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England, Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 138149. Svoboda, J. (1987). Lithic industries of the Arago, Vertesszollos, and Bilzingsleben hominids: Comparison and evolutionary interpretation. Current Anthropology 28: 219227. Svoboda, J. (1989). Middle Pleistocene adaptations in central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3: 3370. Tester, P. J. (1965). An Acheulian site at Cuxton. Archaeologia Cantiana 3060. Thieme, H., and Reinhard, M. (1995). Archaologishe Ausgrabungen im Braunkohlentagebau Schoningen, Landkreis Helmstedt, Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover. Tode, A. (1953). Die Untersuchung der palaolithischen Freilandstation von Salzgitter-Leben stedt. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 3: 144220. Tode, A. (1982). Der Altsteinzeitliche Fundplatz Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, Bohlau Verlag, Koln. Toepfer, V. (1961). Das Altpalaolithische Feuersteinwerkzeug von Hundisberg. Jahreschrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 45: 3569. Toepfer, V. (1968). Das Clactonien im Saale-Mittelelbegebiet. Jahreschrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 52: 126. Toth, N., and Schick, K. D. (1993). Early stone industries and inferences regarding language and cognition. In Gibson, K., and Ingold, T. (eds.), Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 346364. Tuffreau, A., and Antoine, P. (1995). The earliest occupation of Europe: Continental North-

62

White

western Europe. In Roebroeks, W., and van Kolfschoten, T. (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe, University of Leiden and European Science Foundation, Leiden, pp. 147163. Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., and Marcy, J.-L. (1997). Land-use and site function in Acheulean complexes of the Somme Valley. World Archaeology 29: 225241. Turner, A. (1982). Hominids and fellow travellers. South African Journal of Science 78: 231237. Turner, C. (1970). The Middle Pleistocene deposits at Marks Tey, Essex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B257: 373440. Turner, C., and Kerney, M. P. (1971). A note on the age of the Freshwater Beds of the Clacton Channel. Journal of the Geological Society of London 127: 8793. Van Riet Lowe, C. (1932). The prehistory of South Africa in relation to that of Western Europe. South African Journal of Science 29: 756764. Vertes, L. (1965). Typology of the Buda industry: A pebble tool industry from the Hungarian Lower Palaeolithic. Quaternaria 7: 185195. Villa, P. (1983). Terra Amata and the Middle Pleistocene Archaeological Record of Southern France, University of California Press Publications in Anthropology No. 13. Villa, P. (1990). Torralba and Aridos: Elephant exploitation in Middle Pleistocene Spain. Journal of Human Evolution 19: 299309. Vishnyatsky, L. B. (1999). The Paleolithic of central Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 69122. Waechter, J. DA. (1970). Swanscombe 1969. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute (for 1969): 8385. Waechter, J. DA. (1971). Swanscombe 1970. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute (for 1970): 4349. Waechter, J. DA. (1973). The Late Middle Acheulean Industries in the Swanscombe Area. In Strong, D. E. (ed.), Archaeological Theory and Practice, Seminar Press, London, pp. 6786. Warren, S. H. (1911a). Essex Field Club visit to Clacton-on-Sea. Essex Naturalist 16: 322324. Warren, S. H. (1911b). Palaeolithic wooden spear from Clacton. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 67: 119. Warren, S. H. (1912). Palaeolithic remains from Clacton-on-Sea. Essex Naturalist 15: 15. Warren, S. H. (1922). The Mesvinian industry of Clacton-on-Sea. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 3: 597602. Warren, S. H. (1923). The Elephas antiquus bed of Clacton-on-Sea (Essex) and its ora and fauna. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 79: 606636. Warren, S. H. (1924). The elephant bed of Clacton-on-Sea. Essex Naturalist 21: 3240. Warren, S. H. (1926). The classication of the Lower Palaeolithic with especial reference to Essex. South East Naturalist 31: 3850. Warren, S. H. (1932). The Palaeolithic industries of the Clacton and Dovercourt district. Essex Naturalist 24: 129. Warren, S. H. (1951). The Clacton int industry: A new interpretation. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 62: 107135. Wenban-Smith, F. F. (1996). Another one bites the dust. Lithics 16: 99107. Wenban-Smith, F. F. (1998). Clactonian and Acheulian Industries in Britain: Their chronology and signicance reconsidered. In Ashton, N., Healy, F., and Pettitt, P. (eds.), Stone Age Archaeology: Essays in Honour of John Wymer, Lithic Studies Society, London, pp. 9097. Wenban-Smith, F. F., and Ashton, N. M. (1998). Raw material and lithic technology. In Ashton, N. M., Lewis, S. G., and Partt, S. (eds.), Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 198994, British Museum (Occasional Paper 125), London, pp. 237244. West, R. G. (1969). Pollen analysis from interglacial deposits at Aveley and Grays, Essex. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 80: 271282. White, M. J. (1996). Biface Variability and Human Behaviour in the Earlier Palaeolithic: A Study from South-Eastern England, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

The Clactonian Question

63

White, M. J. (1998). On the signicance of Acheulean biface variability in Southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64: 1545. White, M. J., and Pettitt, P. B. (1996). Technology of Early Palaeolithic Western Europe: Innovation, variability and a unied framework. Lithics 16: 2740. White, M. J., and Schreve, D. C. (2000). Insular Britain-Peninsula Britain: Palaeogeography, colonisation and settlement history of Lower Palaeolithic Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66 (in press). Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W. C., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama, Y., Tutin, C. E. G., Wrangham, R. W., and Boesch, C. (1999). Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399: 682685. Wymer, J. J. (1956). Palaeoliths from the gravel of the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley at Highlands, near Henley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 22: 2936. Wymer, J. J. (1957). A Clactonian industry at Little Thurrock, Grays, Essex. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 68: 159177. Wymer, J. J. (1964). Excavations at Barneld Pit, 19551960. In Ovey, C. D. (ed.), The Swanscombe Skull: A Survey of Research on a Pleistocene Site, Royal Anthropological Institute (Occasional Paper No. 20), London, pp. 1960. Wymer, J. J. (1968). Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as Represented by the Thames Valley, John Baker, London. Wymer, J. J. (1974). Clactonian and Acheulean industries in Britain: Their chronology and signicance. Proceedings of the Geologists Association 85: 391421. Wymer, J. J. (1979). Comment on Ohel. Current Anthropology 20: 719. Wymer, J. J. (1983). The Lower Palaeolithic sites at Hoxne. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 35: 169189. Wymer, J. J. (1985). Palaeolithic Sites of East Anglia, Geobooks, Norwich. Wymer J. J. (1988). Palaeolithic archaeology and the British Quaternary Sequence. Quaternary Science Reviews 7: 7998. Wymer, J. J., and Singer, R. (1993). Flint industries and human activity. In Singer, R., Gladfelter, B. G., and Wymer, J. J. (eds.), The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England, University of Chicago, Press, Chicago, pp. 74128. Wymer, J. J., Lewis, S. G., and Bridgland, D. R. (1991). Warren Hill, Mildenhall, Suffolk (TL 744743). In Lewis, S. G., Whiteman, C. A., and Bridgland, D. R. (eds.), Central East Anglia and the Fen Basin. Field Guide, Quaternary Research Association, London, pp. 5058.